4 
 
RESULTS 
 OF HIGHER CRITICISM 
 
 AS APPLIED TO THE 
 
 OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 BV 
 
 W. S. CROWE, D.D. 
 
 Author of " Phases of Religion in America," Etc. 
 
 WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY 
 
 H. W. Thomas, D. D. 
 
 H c if? t 4& 
 
 NEWARK, N. J. 
 
 Printed, by Ward & Tiehenor. 
 
 1894. 
 
 N_ 
 
Copyright, 1894, 
 by W. S. Crowe 
 
 CIS 
 
To the 
 HON. PERRY HANNAH 
 
 THE WISE AND HELPFUL FRIEND 
 
 of my early manhood 
 
PREFACE 
 
 The aim of this book is merely to sum up the more 
 general results at which the critics have arrived in their 
 study of the Old Testament, and present those results in 
 popular form for busy people. Where authorities disagree, 
 those have been followed which pursue the scientific method 
 of historical research most consistently. 
 
 The work has been done hurriedly and at intervals, in the 
 midst of many other labors, and its defects will be apparent — 
 not more apparent, it is hoped, than the purpose to help 
 its readers into a clearer religious light and give them a 
 deeper confidence in the revelation which God makes to 
 the developing moral sense of humanity. 
 
 w. s. c. 
 
 Newark, N. J., November, 1894. 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 Of the many toilers in the field of really constructive and en- 
 during religious thought, the Rev. Dr. W. S. Crowe is one of 
 the most able, tireless, candid and courageous. Naturally, and 
 almost necessarily, much that he says in trying to clear away 
 the old errors and prepare the way for the new, the larger 
 and better faith of the true, may seem to some destruction ; but 
 his effort is not to " destroy, but to fulfil ; " not to take away 
 faith, but to free faith from the accretions of error that have 
 been and are the prolific sources of unfaith. He has faith in 
 the truth ; is not afraid to trust truth to the rational and moral 
 consciousness of mankind ; clearly sees the facts of history and 
 literature ; gives them as he finds them ; is not the retained 
 attorney of a sect, or a school of thought or theology, but the 
 fearless advocate of the faith and religion of a world. 
 
 The right of one in a denomination to thus think and write, 
 may be questioned by some, and even criticised, but to those who 
 would minister most deeply and helpfully to the present needs 
 of our transitional and unsettled time, the supreme question in 
 all cases must be, not what has been thought to be truth, 
 but what is truth. The truth is that which is ; error is that 
 which is not. And only the true can stand the test of the ages. 
 
 When, some twenty-five years ago, Bishop Colenso ventured 
 to question the historic accuracy of certain statements in the 
 Old Testament, the Orthodox churches of England and our own 
 country were frightened, fearing that the foundations of faith 
 were endangered, or were being hopelessly undermined. But 
 such a fear was a poor answer to the facts he presented, and 
 the larger-minded Dean Stanley confessed that the difference 
 between himself and 'Dr. Colenso, who was on trial for heresy, 
 was largely in the fact that the Dean dwelt upon the excellencies 
 of the Bible, while the Bishop felt called upon to criticise its 
 defects. 
 
 Nor is it difficult to understand why such criticism should 
 
viii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 have created alarm and disturbance, The Bible had long been 
 accepted as the infallible word of God, and all of its sixty-six 
 books as equally inspired and authoritative. It was this infalli- 
 ble Book that the Protestant church put over against the infalli- 
 ble Church of the Catholics, and each accepted its own authority 
 as final ; that is, took authority for truth, instead of truth for 
 authority. 
 
 Fifty, yes, thirty years ago, belief in the plenary inspiration 
 and the inerrant infallibility of the Bible, was just as sacred as 
 was belief in the existence and character of God, and in one 
 sense more sacred ; for Orthodox theologians did venture to 
 discuss the Divine existence and attributes, but they accepted 
 everything in the Bible without question. And even now, the 
 Presbyterian church is quite free to discuss the peculiar doc- 
 trines of Calvin, and to propose a revision of its Creed, but 
 when Dr. Briggs and Prof. Smith dared question the old doctrine 
 of inspiration and the infallibility of the Bible, these learned 
 men were tried for heresy, and expelled from the ministry of 
 that church. 
 
 But the questions and facts of the Higher Criticism cannot 
 be answered or settled, nor even long delayed, by such eccles- 
 iastical decisions. The age of Church authority is happily 
 past; henceforth the one question must be, what is true ? And 
 the church or the faith that cannot fearlessly brave that ordeal, 
 must fall back, must find its place in the rear and not in the 
 front ranks of these wonderful years of rational progress. 
 
 Nor is the fear well founded, that the great changes in the 
 living thought of our time will work the destruction or even 
 do injury to faith. Old forms of faith must change and give 
 place to the new, but out of all will come forth the greater and 
 better faith of the future. This has been the history of religious 
 thought in the past. The new astronomy destroyed faith in 
 the old, but the now accepted facts of the Copernican theory 
 of the universe have made possible a larger and surer faith than 
 was possible to the minds that were so long shut up to the 
 false and little geocentric theory of the Ptolemaic views of the 
 heavens and the earth. And the same has been true of the 
 longer periods of geology that came to dispute the old six- 
 day theory of the creation. And the still later doctrine of evo- 
 
INTRODUCTION. ix 
 
 lution, that at first was opposed as the enemy of faith — is not 
 yet welcomed by all — is enlarging the vision, and emphasizing 
 the fact of the immanency, the continued presence and near- 
 ness of the Divine in the laws of nature and in the reason and 
 conscience of man, thence making faith more near and real 
 than ever before ; for it is the faith of that which is, and rests 
 upon the eternal and progressive order of the Divine, and not 
 a faith that tries to rest upon the supposed but unverifiable 
 disturbances of that order. The supernatural is coming to be 
 seen not as the unnatural, but as the higher natural ; the un- 
 natural is disappearing from the world of religion, and in its 
 place is coming the surer and larger faith in the higher natural. 
 
 In the light of the evolution of man and religion, the Higher 
 Criticism is finding the place and order and progressive 
 teaching of the books of the Old Testament, and the result is 
 that the Bible is becoming a new book, a wonderful and sacred 
 history and literature of the long past ; and none the less sacred 
 because it is a history and a literature, and as such reveals the 
 progressive life and the imperfections and errors of its time and 
 of its generally unknown authors. And it is not strange that 
 this higher process should replace the order and dates of many 
 books in the Old Testament ; but in the new historical setting 
 or arrangement, the real meaning and relevancy of these books 
 to the conditions and needs of the times in which they were 
 written becomes more, and often most strikingly apparent. 
 
 It is in this that the work of Dr. Crowe has its unique value. 
 In the larger works of Prof . Robertson Smith, Drs. Kuenen and 
 Driver, and the " Bible for Learners," the same ground has been 
 gone over; but in none of these is there the masterly grouping 
 of facts, the vivid historic imagination, the originality of 
 conception and the practical adaptation to the thought and 
 need of the present, that are the marked characteristics and 
 charm of these pages by Dr. Crowe. He has accomplished 
 the very difficult task of popularizing, and at the same time 
 preserving the full strength and dignity of a great and serious 
 study, that to other authors is so largely a dry detail of dates 
 and the growth and use of words. These are essentials in the 
 science of the Higher Criticism ; nor are they wanting in this 
 most excellent work, but in their powerful and artistic presenta- 
 
x INTRODUCTION. 
 
 tion they have the freshness and interest of a history of a near 
 yesterday, and make one feel that he is living in the great reali- 
 ties of the long ago. 
 
 Nor is this all : the study of these pages will lead to the 
 new study of the Bible, and to a wiser appreciation and pro- 
 founder realization of its great spiritual truths as revealed in 
 the unfolding religious consciousness of the world. 
 
 H. W. Thomas. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 Chapter I 
 
 Back to the Beginning ; page 
 
 Epochs in the history and development of the Bible — 
 the earliest writing — the original literature — hero stories, 
 legends and myths i 
 
 Chapter II 
 
 Early Hebrew History : 
 
 Primitive traditions — historic outlines — literature de- 
 pendent on history — the tribal period — Hebrew ignorance 
 of Egypt — the literature of the tribal period — " Jacob's 
 Blessing " and " The Covenant." 1 1 
 
 Chapter III 
 
 The National Period; 
 
 How the tribes became a nation — Saul, the giant — David, 
 not the psalmist — intellectual development in time of war 
 — Solomon, the unwise — his weakness as a statesman — the 
 squandering of energy in untimely architecture — the na- 
 tion's crisis — the failure — political degeneracy — religion 
 and literature of the national period — the beginning of the 
 priesthood — " The Wars of the Lord " and " The Book of 
 Jasher" — religious development — characteristics of the 
 ancient nations 1 8 
 
 Chapter IV 
 Israel and Judah ; 
 
 The new ideal — the people's conception of "manifest 
 destiny" — prophets and prophecy— what prophecy is not 
 and what it is — theological prophets — the epoch of reform 
 — how a new moral sense creates literary activity — the 
 great eighth century B. C. — Amos, Hosea, the First Isaiah, 
 Micah — false readings — drama, the song of Solomon — 
 wisdom literature — the first collection of Proverbs— poetry 
 — the two Decalogues— the Hexateuch — double authorship 
 — the prophet historian — other histories 33 
 
xii CONTENTS. 
 
 Chapter V 
 Judah : page 
 
 The destruction of Israel — last of the great ethical 
 prophets — sudden development of the Jewish priesthood — 
 centralization of ecclesiastical power under Hezekiah — 
 Josiah's great stratagem for unifying the church — the book 
 of Deuteronomy — the occasion of other books, Zephaniah, 
 Nahum — second collection of Proverbs — Jeremiah, the 
 priest-prophet — conflicting theories of providence, the old 
 prophetic theory, the new priestly theory, the theory of the 
 book of Job 65 
 
 Chapter VI 
 
 In Captivity : 
 
 Difference between heathen and Christian treatment of 
 the religion of conquered peoples — the priests of the exile 
 as organizers— what became of the Ten Tribes — the adop- 
 tion of ceremonial exclusiveness — The Law of holiness as 
 a political measure — a fragment of Zechariah — Ezekiel, the 
 Startling — Lamentations — " The Suffering Servant " — a few 
 psalms— Obadiah — Judges — Samuel — Kings— a shout of 
 triumph— Cyrus, the Deliverer — three reasons for his kind- 
 ness to the Jews 79 
 
 Chapter VII 
 The Home-Coming: 
 
 Conditions of the return — literature of the return, frag- 
 ments of Isaiah, part of Zechariah, Haggai, Joel — the 
 sufferer's pride — who and what the Samaritans were 92 
 
 Chapter VIII 
 The Law : 
 
 The spirit and the work of the Jews who remained in 
 Babylon — the literary creation of The Tabernacle for a 
 priestly purpose — the practice of dating books backward 
 and claiming fictitious authorship — Ezra in Jerusalem — his 
 cruel but necessary decree against intermarriage with 
 heathen — Nehemiah in Jerusalem — his promulgation of the 
 so-called Law of Moses — the writing of various books into 
 a pentateuch — memoirs of Ezra and Nehemiah — Malachi — 
 
CONTENTS. xlil 
 
 PAGE 
 Novels, Ruth and Jonah, against priestly assumption — the 
 conservative era — Chronicles — Psalms, the hymn-book of 
 the rejuvenated second temple 96 
 
 Chapter IX 
 Greek Influence: 
 
 Growing intelligence and decaying morality — Esther and 
 Ecclesiastes 115 
 
 Chapter X 
 
 The Jewish Reformation : 
 
 A sketch of Jewish history from 332 B. C. to 160 B. C — 
 the heathenizing of Judaism — the new patriotism — Judas 
 Maccabaeus — the book of Daniel — the excuse for literary 
 forgery — recapitulation of the dates of Old Testament 
 writings 1 20 
 
 Chapter XI 
 The Critics: 
 
 In Scotland, Lord Gifford's contribution to theological 
 progress— in England, the liberalism of conservative Oxford 
 — the work of Dr. Briggs and Dr. Salmond — in Holland 
 and Germany, Kuenen and Wellhausen — in America, tardy 
 but at last awake — the purpose of the'critics ... 131 
 
 Chapter XII 
 Incidental Results : 
 
 Incidental results always greater than direct results — a 
 consideration of traditional theories about the Bible ; the 
 "all or none" theory; the "one book" theory; the 
 " miraculous revelation " theory ; the " miraculous proph- 
 ecy "theory; the "miraculous history" theory — the new 
 appreciation of the Bible — its sublime power of moral con- 
 viction — the true idea of revelation ; the vision accorded 
 to the moral sense— the difference between a necessary 
 evil and the eternal right — inspiration — providence — the 
 issue — the tyranny of texts — the ground of hatred and 
 persecution — what Higher Criticism is good for 141 
 

BACK TO THE BEGINNING. 
 
 CHAPTER L 
 
 Back to the Beginning. 
 
 We shall need to go about our work as geologists do — passing 
 down through stratum after stratum until we reach the primi- 
 tive rock. A child, looking out upon the world, imagines that 
 it came from the Creator's hand just as it is now. The seas 
 and mountains and rivers, and even the forests, he supposes, 
 are just as God spake them into being. With a very little 
 knowledge the child comes to understand that our forests — all 
 forests— are a modern growth. When he studies back to the 
 glacial period, he finds that our rivers and lakes are things of 
 comparatively recent origin. When he gets a little deeper 
 into this great book of the rocks, he finds that our continents 
 and oceans are not the original continents and oceans. Conti- 
 nents have been thrown up and worn away, oceans have been 
 ploughed out and filled, their forms and locations many times 
 changed. The heights of our highest hills have been at the 
 bottom of the sea. Going still further back, the student comes 
 upon a time, before there were any mountains or any seas, when 
 the earth was a mass of molten stuffs, like a great fiery paste. 
 We may pause here and call that the original earth. 
 
 Looking upon the Bible, children and grown children imagine 
 that it came from the hand of God in its present shape. They 
 suppose that its various books, divided into chapters and 
 verses, with headings and punctuation marks, printed in the 
 English language ; the books set in the order and dated and 
 authors given, as we now have them, and bound in a single 
 volume — that this Bible which we handle is the original Bible. 
 Now, let us dig down through the history of this great old book 
 and see what we find along the way and what we have left for 
 a beginning. 
 
 A good reference book, for these particular facts, is the Rev. 
 
2 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 John W. Chadwick's " Bible of To-Day. " Mr. Chadwick's well- 
 known scholarship, if no other authority were at hand, would 
 relieve my hesitancy in making the following statements. 
 
 The Bible, as we now have it, is only 232 years old. The 
 dates of many of the books were put on by Archbishop Usher, 
 in the year 1660. That is our first halting place. There has 
 never been a hotter controversy than has raged about the 
 question of dates. Men have struggled for Usher's dates, as if 
 Paul and Isaiah and Moses themselves had put on the figures. 
 Usher's chronology is little better than a pious guess-work. 
 
 We travel back forty-nine years farther to another halting 
 place. The year is 161 1. The fact is our authorized version. 
 The spirit of the enterprise is James I. of England. Under the 
 direction of James the bishops put on these chapter headings 
 and these running titles of the margins. Turn, for instance, to 
 chapter xlix. of Isaiah and read this heading : " Christ, being 
 sent to the Jews, complaineth of them. He is sent to the Gen- 
 tiles with gracious promises." Look at the top of the page and 
 see this running title : " Christ sent to the Gentiles," and on 
 the next page : " An exhortation to trust in Christ." For 
 these 281 years the children and grown children of Protestant 
 Christendom have read those headings and titles and have con- 
 sidered them a part of the Bible : if not original, at least as 
 containing the original import and meaning of Isaiah. We 
 should not be much farther from the truth if we Americans 
 should make a new authorized version and should put a head- 
 ing to Isaiah xlix. on this wise : "Washington, being sent to the 
 English, complaineth of them. He is sent to the Americans 
 with gracious promises." Read the third verse of that chapter 
 and you will see what Isaiah means. Jehovah is made to say : 
 •' Thou art my servant, O Israel (the nation of Israel), in 
 whom I will be glorified." " Israel " does not mean " Christ " 
 any more than it means " Washington." For 281 years the 
 children have read these headings and supposed they were an 
 explanation of the chapters. It is a great advantage to get 
 back of them and read the Bible without their absurd com- 
 mentary. 
 
 Now, let us go back sixty years further to another halting 
 station. The year is 1 551. The genius is Robert Stephens (or 
 
BACK TO THE BEGINNING. 3 
 
 Estienne, as is the name in French), a printer of Paris, a rigid 
 Calvinist. The momentous fact is the printing of the Bible, 
 or part of it, with the present division of chapters and verses. 
 " This division into verses," says Chadwick, " has been a fruit- 
 ful source of textual polemics, resulting in bad blood and worse 
 theology." 
 
 Another short journey takes us back to the fourteenth cen- 
 tury, when people began to say " The Bible." The simple fact 
 that we call this collection of books " The Bible," as if it were 
 one book, and not a collection of books, is a very important 
 fact ; a fact that has been fruitful of misunderstanding. We 
 naturally think of one book as having one author, or one 
 directing genius. When children understand that between the 
 first and last writing intervened a thousand years they know, 
 of course, that one man was not the author ; but if it is one 
 book it must somehow have been the work of one mind. 
 Simply because we call it The Bible, children conclude that all 
 its parts must agree — that a continuous meaning runs all through 
 it — that its purposes and doctrines must have unity of design. 
 
 Prior to the fourteenth century it was not called The Bible. 
 It was not thought of as one book. They did not, say Ton Bib- 
 lion, but Ta Biblia — the books. And prior to the fifth century 
 these were not called books at all, but writings — Hebrew and 
 Christian writings. It makes a vast difference to the average 
 man whether he is reading The Bible or whether he is reading- 
 Hebrew and Christian writings. Turn your thoughts inward 
 to your own childish conception of things, and you will see 
 what I mean. 
 
 Another important date — one of the most important in 
 relation to the Hebrew writings, may be set down approximately 
 as the year 600. The interesting fact in that connection is what 
 scholars know as the Massora. What is the Massora ? The 
 word means tradition. What does the tradition refer to ? To 
 the pronunciation, punctuation and vowels of Hebrew writing. 
 Hebrew writing, before the time of which I speak, about 600 
 A. D., had no punctuation marks and no vowels. Its alphabet 
 consisted of nothing but consonants. It had no capital letters 
 and no word spaces. 
 
 Suppose you try the experiment of writing a few sentences 
 
4, RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 without vowels, without word spaces, without capitals and with- 
 out punctuations — just placing the consonants of the words, 
 one after the other, the same space between each two letters, 
 until you fill a page. Do you think anybody could read it ? 
 Well, that is all that Hebrew writing for fifteen centuries 
 afforded. Take such a sentence as " God is love." It would be 
 written "gdslv." If you had simply those consonants you 
 would be at a great loss what to make of them. You might 
 put in one set of vowels and it would read, " aged slave." 
 With other vowels it will read " good salve." You can readily 
 see that an entire book written thus, of solid consonants, would 
 be capable of more interpretations than a party platform or a 
 candidate's letter of acceptance. 
 
 How did the Hebrews keep the pronunciation and the 
 division into sentences at all ? Simply by reading aloud and 
 practically committing, from generation to generation. Punc- 
 tuation is a very important thing. You recall the old story of 
 that member of Commons who had accused another member of 
 lying. A resolution was passed obliging him to make public 
 apology ; which he did in this wise : " I said the gentleman 
 lied, it is true; and I am sorry for it." But when the apology 
 appeared next morning, in print, the comma after the word 
 lied had been changed to a period, and the following letter duly 
 capitalized. Then it was no apology : " I said the gentleman 
 lied. It is true ; and I am sorry for it." 
 
 When the entire meaning of books was carried along thus 
 for a thousand or fifteen hundred years in the memory, you can 
 seethe liability to mistake. That memory, "tradition," Mas- 
 sora, was written into the Bible about the year 600. 
 
 The most important word in the Hebrew language — their 
 name for God — is still in dispute. It was written j h v h. 
 Through motives of reverence it was seldom pronounced, 
 and the pronunciation was lost. Whether it should be Jehovah, 
 Jahaveh or Jahveh, is still an unsettled problem. Most schol- 
 ars incline to the last spelling. 
 
 You see that a Bible of the olden time did not look much 
 like ours. Of course it was not printed or bound. It was a 
 collection of parchment rolls. In very ancient times the 
 writing was on ox-hides. The surface of the leather was 
 
BACK TO THE BEGINNING. 5 
 
 scratched with an iron stylus and ink was let into the scraches. 
 The book of Isaiah, for instance, written on half a dozen ox- 
 hides, those hides tied together with thongs, would make a 
 roll, like a roll of hall-carpet, five feet long, and the size of a 
 man's body. There were no running titles, no chapter head- 
 ings, no division into chapters or verses, no spacing between 
 words, no capital letters, no punctuation marks and no vowels. 
 
 In all the world there were but a few copies of any book. 
 Those copies were kept in the temple and the synagogues. 
 Few people read them. The priests re-wrote them as the old 
 hides became worn or musty, and we shall never know how 
 much of the original was left out, changed, or what additions 
 were made in the course of so many centuries. 
 
 Now, as we travel back from the Massoretic period, let us see 
 what we lose on the way. 
 
 Of course, when we reach the time of Christ, we have lost 
 the entire New Testament. 
 
 We go back to the beginning of the Maccabsen war — 1 66 
 B. C. — and the entire Apocrypha, Daniel, a few Psalms, have 
 dropped out. 
 
 We go back to the conquest of Palestine by Alexander — 332 
 B. C. — and Ecclesiastes, Esther, Chronicles, more Psalms, have 
 dropped out. 
 
 We go back to the advent of Ezra — 458 B. C. — and Ruth, 
 Jonah, Ezra, Nehemiah, Malachi, one-third of the Proverbs, 
 the great body of the Psalms, have dropped out. 
 
 We go back to the destruction of Jerusalem — 586 B. C. — and 
 Joel, Haggai, Obadiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, First and Second 
 Kings. First and Second Samuel, Judges, Leviticus, about half 
 of Genesis and Exodus and Numbers and Joshua, large portions 
 of Jeremiah and Zechariah and Isaiah, some of the few remain- 
 ing Psalms, have dropped out. 
 
 We go back to the deportation of the Ten Tribes— 721 B. C. 
 — and the remainder of Jeremiah, more Psalms, Job, Nahum, 
 Zephaniah, another third of Proverbs, Deuteronomy, Micah, 
 other portions of Isaiah, have dropped out. 
 
 What of our Bible did Israel (Ten Tribes) ever see ? Hosea, 
 Amos, Song of Solomon, about half of Isaiah, one-third of 
 Proverbs, a few chapters of Zechariah, the story parts of Gen- 
 
6 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITG1SM. 
 
 esis and Exodus and Numbers and Joshua, the Decalogue, Ja- 
 cob's Blessing, and the Covenant ; and all of these, except the 
 last three, were new ; the oldest of them not having been writ- 
 ten more than fifty years when Israel was destroyed by the 
 Assyrians. 
 
 When we get back to 800 B. C, there was probably nothing, 
 as it stands in our Bible to-day, except the Decalogue, the 
 Covenant, and Jacob's Blessing — five short chapters. You 
 must remember that 800 B. C, for any of the Mediterranean 
 nations outside of Egypt, is a very ancient date. That was 
 twenty-four years before the first Great Olympiad in Greece, 
 which was held in 776, and is the oldest reliable date in Greek 
 history. It was forty-seven years before the reputed founding 
 of the city of Rome, which, according to the Roman historian, 
 Varro, took place in the year 753 B. C. All that ancient his- 
 tory of Rome, however, is lost in the impenetrable fog of tradi- 
 tion. 
 
 When we ask a date for any writing of the Mediterranean 
 world, outside of Egypt, prior to 800 B. C, we are making a 
 heavy demand. Herodotus claims that Homer himself was not 
 more than fifty years earlier, but that date must be greatly 
 revised. Dr. William Smith inclines to the idea that Homer 
 composed his poems very near the time of the first Great 
 Olympiad. Mahaffy is disposed to bring Homer down almost 
 to the year 700. 
 
 Did the pre-Homeric poets and story-tellers write, or simply 
 compose and recite their works ? That is a still graver 
 question. What I have said about ancient Hebrew writing 
 applies almost entirely to ancient Greek. It was without 
 spaces and punctuations. Very little, indeed, was written. 
 It was composed and recited. The Greeks actually became 
 a literary people before they had books. Poems, legends, 
 stories of great men and great events were put in form 
 and recited until multitudes committed them. In the olden 
 times there were professional reciters — Rhapsodists, they weie 
 called — who traveled from city to city and from village to 
 village, reciting the compositions of the bards in temples 
 or in the markets or on the public squares— wherever a 
 crowd of listeners would gather. That was the ancient cir- 
 
BACK TO THE BEGINNING. 7 
 
 culating library. Parchments were few and expensive. Not 
 one person in ten thousand could write or read, but they could 
 all listen and remember. At the Olympiads the great authors 
 first recited their own productions. The professional reciters 
 committed the poem or story, and then went over the land 
 popularizing the new composition. 
 
 Now, we must understand, once for all, that the ancient 
 Hebrew literature was produced and popularized in the same 
 way. Psalms, historic stories, dramas, legends, prophetic utter- 
 ances were composed and recited. After a while this and that 
 great composition were written and the writing kept in the 
 temple, just as Greek poems were finally written out and pre- 
 served in the temple at Oiympia. The Hebrews, like the 
 Greeks, had a considerable literature in memory while yet 
 they had almost no writing, and while the little writing they 
 had served only to corect the memory of the priests and 
 rhapsodists. 
 
 When you get back to the year 800 B. C, you are practically 
 at the beginning of written literature, for the Mediteranean 
 world, outside of Egypt. It may possibly be that among the 
 Hebrews a few scraps were written earlier. Many scholars 
 incline to the idea that the Ten Commandments, in some prim- 
 itive form, that The Covenant which we have in Exodus xxi., 
 xxii., and up to the nineteenth verse of xxiii. ; and that Jacob's 
 Blessing, which we have in Genesis xiix., were written much 
 earlier. Other scholars are in serious doubt of it. That these 
 old fragments, and much besides, were composed and recited 
 and well known long before the date 800 B. C, there is no 
 doubt. 
 
 Now, if we can, let us get at the meaning of that " much 
 besides. ' To put it plainly, what literature did the Hebrews 
 have, in memory, before 800 B. C. ? That is what I mean by 
 their original literature. 
 
 What kind of a literature do people, who do not read, carry 
 along in their memories ? Statistics ? No. Scientific treat- 
 ises? No. Careful historic accounts with verified facts and 
 dates ? No. Philosophical works ? No. Anything of the 
 nature of a plain prose statement ? No. They carry along the 
 kind of literature that is easy to remember. What is easy to 
 
8 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 remember? Stories, songs, proverbs, legends, myths. Well, 
 these are the things that every original literature consists of. 
 Go down among the negroes and the poor whites of the South 
 and you will find more proverbs and quaint sayings, ten times 
 over, than you or I ever found use for. Go into the interior 
 districts of Ireland or Germany, and you will find more hob- 
 goblin stories, more fairy and brownie and spook literature, than 
 you ever read in books. Fiske and Baring-Gould and others 
 have rendered the cultured world a great service in gathering 
 up these myths, this curious folk-lore, from the country sides, 
 and giving the mass of it in book-form. Schoolcraft and Long- 
 fellow did a great service in gathering up the myths and 
 legends of the American Indians. Hiawatha is simply their 
 memory literature put in cultured form. William Black and 
 G. W. Cable, in their stories of Southern life, have done much 
 of the same for the negroes and Creoles. Walter Scott did the 
 same in " Rob Roy " and " Lady of the Lake," for Scotland. 
 Chaucer did the same, in " Canterbury Tales," for primitive 
 England. Boccaccio did the same, for the baser kind of stuff, 
 in old Italian life. " The Lives of the Saints," so beloved in 
 the Catholic church, is the same kind of a gathering up of 
 exaggerated religious stories, as those stories floated down the 
 ages of ignorance. " The Arabian Nights " is but a collection 
 of these ancient, popular stories. The poems of Homer him- 
 self, in the main, are nothing more nor different. Get Bul- 
 finch's "Age of Fable," and you have the Homeric stories 
 resolved back into their primitive form. 
 
 Proverbs, "sayings," songs like those of Moses and Miriam 
 and Deborah, the sun myth like that put into the form of the 
 Samson story — such things were easily remembered. The Ten 
 Commands and the famous traditions about the tables of stone 
 on which they were written, the covenant and Jacob's bles- 
 sing — these are religious things which a primitive people keep 
 well in mind. 
 
 Now, for the old Hebrew, unwritten history. If you will take 
 up the historic books of the Old Testament, and read them 
 with this key in your thoughts, their pages are unlocked. You 
 will immediately appreciate that they consist of a series of 
 short, popular, wonder-stories of the old heroes. Just such 
 
BACK TO THE BEGINNING. 9 
 
 stories as you have in Homer, with a germ foundation in fact, 
 but which have grown from age to age until every story con- 
 tains a wonder, a miracle. It is the miracle in it which makes 
 it easy for the common people to remember. 
 
 Suppose we had no written literature, no books, how do you 
 think we should preserve the main facts of our American his- 
 tory ? We could not remember the thousands of names of all 
 the governors and generals and poets and story-tellers and 
 teachers and financiers. We should do just as people always 
 did. We should remember the names of the great heroes, and 
 we should give them credit for everything their generation 
 accomplished. All that a colony did in forty years, all that an 
 army did in ten years, we should attribute to one man ; and, of 
 course, we should make him a miraculous man to do so much. 
 
 Out of the primeval age would loom one great figure — 
 Columbus — and we should give him credit for everything that 
 Amerigo and the Cabots and Magellan and Cortes and Pizarro, 
 and fifty other discoverers and conquerors, brought to pass. 
 We should make him live a hundred years. We should give 
 him magic ships and a power of quelling storms and slaying 
 multitudes with his god-like word. Miles Standish, perhaps, 
 would be the only New Englander of half a century that we 
 would recall. We should have him crossing the ocean on dry 
 land, with sun and moon standing still while he slaughtered 
 more Indians. George Washington's hatchet would have 
 grown to a hammer of Thor with which he knocked down half 
 the primeval forest of Virginia and slew the English army sin- 
 gle-handed. All the good stories of these four centuries would 
 be attributed to Lincoln, just as all the Hebrew proverbs of ten 
 centuries were attributed to Solomon. All the songs and 
 hymns of our hundreds of writers would be credited to Long- 
 fellow, perhaps, just as all the Psalms are sometimes called 
 David's. 
 
 In this way the Hebrews kept the simple facts of their his- 
 tory — imbedded in the wonder and childish charm of hero- 
 stories. The Hebrews escaped from Egypt, where they had 
 been slaves. How, the later generations quite forgot. One 
 great name they remembered — the name of Moses. Every- 
 
lO BESTTLTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 thing was attributed to him. Wonder-stories were woven about 
 him — his birth, the burning bush, his Ten Commands received 
 from God on Sinai, his strange death, his active life of 120 
 years. Then we have the stories of Joshua, Gideon, Jephthah, 
 Deborah, Samuel, Saul, David, Solomon — hero-stories, every 
 one, in which the work of an entire people for one or two 
 generations is attributed to the hero. Imagination had full 
 play. Legend and myth were woven into the narrative and 
 dates forgotten. The wonder, the miracle, in every case, helped 
 the people to remember the simple historic fact at the heart of 
 the story. Canaan was conquered, the tribes were consolidated 
 into a nation, the temple was built, the Ten Commands were 
 composed. The toilsome history of these events has been lost 
 and the events are floated down to us in their clouds of tra- 
 dition. 
 
EARLY HEBREW HISTORY. 11 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 Early Hebrew History. 
 
 Hebrew history begins with the exodus from Egypt. Back 
 of that is obscure and irresponsible tradition. The date of the 
 exodus must be brought forward nearly two centuries. The 
 best authorities place it about 1320 B.C. What is commonly 
 called the " forty years in the wilderness " is a literary produc- 
 tion rather than an authentic account. Whether the forty years 
 have not dwindled to less than three is a grave question. The 
 story of the conquest of Canaan is also, in very large degree, 
 literary. Authentic history finds the Israelite tribes in Canaan ; 
 finds that they had come from Egyptian slavery ; finds that 
 their remote ancestors had probably been Canaanites. That is 
 about all that the scholars have found concerning the origin of 
 the Hebrew people. 
 
 The first period of Hebrew history extends from the exodus, 
 1 320, to the beginning of national unity under Saul ; or to the 
 beginning of Saul's wars, which culminated in national unity ; 
 to which the date of 1100 B.C. would not be far out of the 
 way. These two hundred and twenty years constitute the 
 tribal period. Very little is known of the detailed history of 
 that time. The scanty sources of knowledge are sufficient, 
 however, to give a tolerably clear outline of the beliefs and 
 customs of that primitive age. 
 
 The second period of the history includes those stirring 
 events of conquest, and king-making, and nation-building, and 
 temple-building, from the beginning of Saul's career to the 
 division of Solomon's kingdom — about 975 B. C. Politically 
 speaking, this was the great age, though it ended in decadence. 
 
 The third period covers the time of the two kindgoms, 
 "Israel" and "Judah," from 975 to 721 B.C., when "Israel" 
 was destroyed, and a large portion of the " Ten Tribes " carried 
 
12 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. ' 
 
 away by the Assyrians. « In a peculiar and empathic sense this 
 was the age of the prophets. Its beginning coincides with the 
 most powerful religious development of the Hebrews. The 
 latter half of it was also their golden age of literature. 
 
 The fourth period embraces the separate existence of Judah, 
 from 721 to 586 B. C, when Jerusalem was thrown down and 
 the chief people were taken in his captive train to Babylonia 
 by Nebuchadnezzar. During this period the prophet's voice 
 became half priestly, and the priesthood was steadily growing 
 in organized ability. 
 
 The fifth period comprises the fifty years of captivity, from 
 the great deportation in 586, to the "return" under Zerubbabel, 
 in 536 B. C. This was an age of change, political, philosophical, 
 social and religious. With their new government, (of priests), 
 their new theology and new ideas of life, they were a very 
 different people from what they had ever been before. All of 
 their own history prior to the captivity was now ancient history. 
 
 The sixth period reaches into the time of Greek influence 
 which followed the conquest of Palestine by Alexander in 332 
 B. C. This is the priest period, the period of theological law- 
 making and of history-writing with a purpose. The character- 
 istics of this age were carried back and stamped upon the annals 
 of all the previous ages. Our common ideas of the older periods 
 are true of this age alone. 
 
 The seventh period reaches down to the wars of the Macca- 
 bees, the glory of whose revolt for religious independence may 
 be roundly dated at 165 B. C. We may pause here, for here Old 
 Testament writing pauses, and the only purpose in studying the 
 history is to establish a basis for studying Hebrew literature. 
 
 The literature of every nation is based on that nation's his- 
 tory. Every great literary period is the out-flowering of some 
 great political change. If we are unacquainted with the polit- 
 ical events, the literature is meaningless. To one who knew 
 nothing of American history, Barbara Frietchie would tell 
 nothing. The Old Testament has long been an enigma, be- 
 cause it was dissociated from the political events of the Heb- 
 rews. It will have a rational meaning and will be clearly 
 understood when we see how every page of it is rooted in the 
 brave little nation's experience. 
 
EARLY HEBREW HISTORY. 13 
 
 The Tribal Period. 
 
 Higher Criticism finds the Hebrews in their tribal barbarism, 
 battling with the Canaanites for a foothold in what they be- 
 lieved to be the land of their forefathers. These Hebrew 
 tribes of Canaan lived in tents, or very primitive huts ; they 
 had no civil laws or central government ; the clans gathered in 
 villages, as the American Indians did, and the chiefs were their 
 arbitrary rulers. They had learned something of handicraft 
 while they were slaves in Egypt, but they had learned almost 
 nothing about Egyptian civilization. The history, the litera- 
 ture, the fine arts, the philosophy, the social culture of Egypt, 
 they knew practically nothing about. There is not the faintest 
 probability that any Hebrew who came out of Egypt could 
 write or read, either the Egyptian language or any other. 
 
 Let us imagine that a company of slaves from the plantations 
 of Florida escaped from their masters in the year i860, and 
 found their way to some savage land, where they should in 
 time work out a civilization of their own. You can easily un- 
 derstand that such people going out from our country would 
 not carry any appreciable knowledge of our philosophy, our 
 science, our inventions, our literature, our social customs. 
 While among us they had known practically nothing about 
 these things. Thousands of Southern slaves never were five 
 miles from the plantation, never saw a great public building, 
 never heard tell of American literature, knew nothing about 
 the inventions, the history, the fine arts, or the social life of the 
 whites. Wherever they went and whatever their descendants 
 afterward became, their future literature would contain nothing 
 of value concerning us. 
 
 The doctrine of immortality was as familiar to the Egyptians 
 of that day as it is to us. It is impossible that the Hebrews 
 could have learned it, for it is not possible that a people should 
 forget that doctrine, and the Hebrews afterward knew nothing 
 of it. During the tribal period Hebrew thought of the future 
 was not as well developed as the earliest missionaries found it 
 among the American Indians. As late as the time of Saul 
 there was no belief in the future that appealed to heart or hope 
 or moral sense. There was nothing more nor better than the 
 simplest and most child-like fear of ghosts. There was no 
 
14 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 conception of future rewards or punishments, no dreams of 
 Heaven or progress. 
 
 The Egyptians of that old time had an elaborate theology, 
 with a noble conception of the spirituality of the gods ; but in 
 the tribal period the Hebrew thought of spirituality is scarcely 
 higher than may be ascribed to fetishism. Their god was 
 simply the " guardian angel " of the tribes. They connected 
 his presence with certain stones. What size or shape or kind 
 of stone we do not know, but they had preserved the tradition 
 that the patriarchs worshiped the gods whose presence was in 
 these stones. The stone itself was called " The House of 
 Jahveh." The tribes carried with them an "ark" or box 
 which contained one of these stones. In that stone dwelt their 
 god. If they would have his help in battle, they must carry 
 the stone with them. When it was captured by the enemy 
 they "mourned after their god." 
 
 As an indication of the moral status of the tribal period, it 
 is sufficient to recall the habit of offering human sacrifices in 
 their worship of Jahveh. Jephthah burned his daughter, and 
 Samuel consumed Agag, a prisoner, on the altars of the Lord. 
 The Hebrews were then on a moral plane with the Mexicans of 
 Montezuma's time, and with the ancient Druids of England. 
 
 The Literature of the Tribal Period. 
 
 Of course the Hebrews did not exist as tribes during their 
 slavery in Egypt. In their wanderings and fightings, on the 
 way to Caanan, it was natural that certain men of superior 
 courage and ability should come to the front as the chiefs of 
 clans. When they finally entered Canaan they fought it out 
 among themselves as to which should have the best locations. 
 This lets us into the secret of what is, perhaps, the oldest 
 literary production of the Israelites. That production, not 
 written of course, but widely committed, was finally embodied 
 in the book of Genesis— our xlixth chapter — and was from 
 the beginning known as Jacob's Blessing. The connection be- 
 tween the history of the clans and this bit of literature is very 
 simple. It so happened that there were twelve tribes. In the 
 
EARLY HEBREW HISTORY. 15 
 
 course of five or six generations, in which facts were forgotten 
 and replaced by traditions, these tribes had found their loca- 
 tions in various parts of the half-conquered country, and had 
 made their reputations, as fighters, or cowards, or wanderers, 
 or men of peace, &c. Some had good locations and were suc- 
 cessful. Some had poor locations and were weak. 
 
 Always and everywhere people like to feel that what has 
 come to pass was foreordained. The tribes which had good 
 places were proud to think it had been thus decreed for them. 
 To the tribes which had poor places it was a comfort to feel 
 that the unpleasant fact had been decreed. They would rather 
 believe that some old doom had descended upon them than 
 simply to confess that their fathers had been whipped by their 
 uncles. 
 
 Some shrewd fellow among them was able to meet this 
 necessity. In all barbarous times the blessing or cursing of a 
 dying chief was supposed to carry magic power for many gen- 
 erations. There were twelve tribes. These twelve tribes, in 
 one way and another, had come to be called by name. Whether 
 their names came from persons or from circumstances it is 
 difficult to tell. Our author went back to the old tra- 
 dition of the time when the forefathers had lived in Ca- 
 naan, before the slavery. He said there was a great old 
 patriarch who had twelve sons, and these were really the fathers 
 of the twelve tribes. To these twelve imaginary brothers he 
 gave the names of the twelve tribes. When he was dying the 
 old patriarch pronounced a prophetic blessing — most of it is 
 cursing, however — on the twelve sons. Read it. Genesis xlix. 
 It is a cunning piece of work, with a genuine literary instinct. 
 The character which the author makes old Jacob give to each 
 of the sons tallies quite remarkably with the circumstances of 
 the tribe which bore that name at the author's time. This 
 composition became immediately popular because it explained 
 (?) to all the ignorant masses why their tribe had been for- 
 tunate or unfortunate. 
 
 Now let us take up the other bit of very ancient literature. 
 Of course, in those slowly progressive generations after the 
 exodus, the Israelites would naturally work out something of a 
 legal code for themselves. That would be a very gradual work, 
 
1 6 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 as it must be with a primitive people. Year after year and 
 generation after generation the chiefs and the wise old men 
 would get together and settle certain matters of property right, 
 certain matters of marriage and family right, certain matters of 
 religious and ceremonial rite. That code of primitive and 
 peculiar laws, as it was finally rounded up, you will find em- 
 bodied in the book of Exodus, chapters xxi., xxii., and to the 
 nineteenth verse of chapter xxiii. It was called in ancient 
 times The Covenant, because these were the laws which the 
 chiefs covenanted with each other to enforce. That code recog- 
 nizes slavery, and polygamy, and the selling of children, and 
 personal revenge, even to the taking of life. Such were the 
 moral standards of that barbarian time. The intellectual stan- 
 dard was such that this primitive code provides for the criminal 
 punishment of animals. You will find in this code also the real 
 old barbarian hospitality and generosity. If any should take 
 a poor man's coat for security of debt he should return it 
 before dark, for it is the poor man's covering. You will find in 
 this primitive code the establishment of the seventh day of the 
 week as a day of rest. That is all they provided for ; simply 
 a day of rest. There was no .dream of a Sabbath of worship. 
 You will find also the establishment of the feast of unleavened 
 bread in memory of their release from Egyptian slavery. It is 
 not called the feast of Passover. The story of how an angel 
 " passed over " and slew the first born of the Egyptians had not 
 yet been invented. 
 
 No man can read that old code of laws intelligently without 
 feeling that he is far back toward the beginning of organized 
 society. These laws deal with such petty questions as only 
 the clansmen of a primitive age have not outgrown. If a father 
 finds himself financially embarrassed, and sells his daughter 
 with the purpose of paying his debts, shall that daughter, pur- 
 chased by another Israelite, be kept as a house slave, or may 
 she be sent into the field to toil with the men slaves and the 
 women slaves that were bought or captured of the heathen ? 
 A very nice point in jurisprudence ; but those old chieftains 
 agreed among themselves that their daughters thus sold into 
 slavery should not be sent to the field. If an ox should form 
 the habit of goring people with his horns, what should be done 
 
EARLY HEBREW HISTORY. 17 
 
 with that wicked ox? Should he be tied up, or killed, or 
 should they make an example of him ? These primitive law- 
 makers concluded that a wicked ox ought to be punished the 
 same as a wicked man. He should be pounded to death with 
 stones as a solemn warning to all other wicked oxen. Even 
 after death his character should be stigmatized. His flesh 
 should not be eaten by men. It should be thrown out as car- 
 rion. They supposed that final disgrace— that men should not 
 eat him — would have had a very moral effect on other oxen. 
 You see that we are dealing with a people who are yet not only 
 in their moral but in their intellectual childhood. 
 
 This code of laws was completed before the time of Saul. It 
 says nothing about a king, and nothing about a temple, and 
 nothing about a priesthood. The priesthood, which long after- 
 ward was fabled to have begun with Aaron, was not yet estab- 
 lished. These laws proclaim capital punishment for the wor- 
 ship of any other god than Jahveh. Of course they believed 
 in the existence of other gods, but Jahveh was their god and 
 him only should they worship. 
 
18 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 The National Period. 
 
 Now let us address ourselves to the question : How did 
 those barbarian tribes ever come to be a nation ? We read the 
 surface storv of how it was done in the book of Samuel. We 
 are told that the people with one accord rose up and asked for 
 a king, and that Samuel laid the matter before their god, 
 Jahveh, and that Jahveh relunctantly and jealously and ironi- 
 cally granted their request and sent Samuel out to find and 
 anoint a king. That would be very simple, indeed, if the great 
 events of history ever happened in that way — but they don't. 
 These thirteen American colonies did not come to be the 
 United States in any such easy and simple way as that. The 
 Netherland States did not come to be a Dutch Republic in any 
 such easy and simple fashion. The old Feudal States did not 
 round into the modern empires of Europe in any such gentle 
 and quiet way. Oh, no. It required mighty revolutions and 
 prolonged wars, and generations of sacrifice and conquest and 
 destruction and study, to bring these nations out of the former 
 chaos. If there is one thing above another that no people on 
 the face of the earth ever did willingly, ever did until they 
 were compelled by the most awful necessities to do it, that 
 thing is to form a centralized government. To build a nation 
 means that every independent chieftain shall give up his 
 power, that every tribe or clan or feudal state must surrender 
 its inherited rights, that every fortressed and armed company 
 of traders shall yield its special privilege, that every aristocratic 
 prince shall forego the ancestral glory of his house, that every 
 pirate fleet and every robber band shall come into subjection, 
 that every ambitious man shall renounce the honors and the 
 glory he has already won and meekly take his chances of pro- 
 motion in the new regime. We are too well acquainted with 
 human nature Men do not willingly make these surrenders 
 
THE NATIONAL PERIOD. 19 
 
 of personal power. Any set of men that could do so would be 
 a set of stupids, altogether too weak to form a nation, or keep 
 it alive when once formed. Only that kind of men who struggle 
 to the death for their personal privileges, right or wrong, are 
 the men who have stuff in them to build a nation of. Your 
 gentle and trusting men who go to an old soothsayer, and say, 
 " Give us a king to rule over us," are not the kind of men that 
 future centuries ever hear tell of. 
 
 How did the Israelite tribes become a nation ? Just as every 
 other set of states or tribes or clans or colonies became a 
 nation. Every nation on earth had its origin in some awful 
 war for existence. Some great enemy came from without, and 
 the little states must unite or be separately crushed. It was 
 England that made our nation. It was Spain that made the 
 Dutch Republic. It was the marvelous Mohammedan empire 
 that lifted Spain and the other European kingdoms out of their 
 feudal chaos. It was the attacks of the continent that de- 
 veloped England. It was the Philistine horde that compelled 
 the nation of Israel. Those old Israelite tribes were not very 
 moral and not very learned, but no set of Modocs or Apache 
 Indians were more desperate in a fight. They had been in 
 slavery once and they did not purpose to go there again. 
 
 Saul, The Giant, 
 
 head and shoulders above ordinary men, who had already 
 gained such a reputation in war that the mention of his name 
 made people's hair stand on end, and whose wrath was like 
 the raging of a wounded lion, so that when he was angry 
 people thought he was possessed of the anger of the gods — 
 i st Sam., xi: 6 — it was this raging Saul who now comes into 
 the historv. 
 
 The enemy had captured a multitude of Israelites and shut 
 them up in a walled town and had given them this horrible 
 choice— they might all be massacred in the pen, or they could 
 have their eyes torn out and be carried away into perpetual 
 slavery. The men begged a few days' mercy that they might 
 decide which fate they would accept. In the meantime they 
 contrived to get word to Saul. Saul went about the business 
 
20 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 in the grand old barbarian way. He chopped up two oxen and 
 sent swift heralds all through the tribes carrying those bloody 
 pieces, and crying: "Thus, O men of Israel, if you do not 
 rally around the banner of Saul before to-morrow noon." They 
 rallied ; and the roaring giant led them into a victorious battle, 
 and the fated prisoners of Jabesh were released, (ist Sam., 
 chap, xi.) 
 
 That was the beginning of the great Israelite war for inde- 
 pendence. A war that lasted eighty years. Nearly forty years 
 under Saul ; more than forty years under David. From middle 
 life until his old age this giant Saul, this lion of the tribe of 
 Benjamin, did battle for the homes and the liberties of Israel. 
 Of course he came to be an organizer and gathered a strong 
 army about himself. Of course he was a despot and a tyrant 
 whom his own soldiers admired and feared as they might ad- 
 mire the power and fear the wrath of an incarnate devil. After 
 some great battle the soldiers proclaimed him their king, as the 
 Roman army used to do — or perhaps, he proclaimed himself 
 king, and compelled Samuel to anoint him. That was why 
 Samuel didn't like it. The warrior was becoming more power- 
 ful than the soothsayer. 
 
 On the general subject of kings we may truthfully say that 
 there comes a time in the intellectual development of nations 
 when kings are a hindrance to progress, but in the early history 
 of nation-building they were essential. Without kings, power- 
 ful, despotic and implacable, there never could have been a 
 nation on the face of the earth. It required just such men of 
 daring and wrath and blood as the son of Kish to bring those 
 wild Israelite warriors into subjection and organize those 
 ignorant and rebellious tribes into a central government. In 
 forty years of war Saul had laid the foundations of a monarchy 
 which lasted five centuries. No priest could have done it. 
 Such work does not lie within the boundaries of priestly 
 method. 
 
 Every student of history knows that war is a heat in which 
 men can be fused into a union as iron is welded with fire. Our 
 own congress did more to centralize legislation in five years of 
 war than it could do in fifty years of peace. During one great 
 century of war the Mohammedan empire was created out of 
 
THE NATIONAL PEBIOD. 21 
 
 scattered fragments. During forty years of war Saul got the 
 tribal idea pretty well hammered out of those old Israelite 
 heads and the national idea about half hammered in. 
 
 David, Not u The Psalmist" 
 
 It was not in the nature of things that Saul should have 
 smooth sailing in his own camp. He was not a smooth man. 
 Old Samuel was there to do what mischief he could. He was 
 a smooth man — as smooth as Merlin. Trouble came in the 
 shape of a rival king. A young hero by the name of David, a 
 dare-devil equal to Saul himself, was urged on by Samuel and 
 by his own ambitions. Saul and David fought the common 
 enemy and fought each other, but David was young and aged 
 Saul must die. 
 
 O, this David, how he has been whitewashed ! And how 
 belittled ! He was not a good little man ; he was a bad great 
 man. We have him doddled down the centuries as a singer of 
 sweet psalms, a pensive player on the harp, the collector of a 
 church building fund, the maker of a tearful ode when King 
 Saul dies; we have him declaring that Saul had been "pleasant 
 and lovely" in his life. All that would be about as true of 
 Borgia or of Nero as of David. If David had been that kind 
 of a man the half-born Israelite nation would also have died 
 with Saul. Pleasant and musical and poetic times had not yet 
 come. There must be a lion's whelp to growl when the old 
 lion could not roar. The Israelites must still have an indomi- 
 table master. There were forty more years of horrible war be- 
 fore the nation should be firmly established. There must be a 
 savage leader for that savage period. David was the man. 
 
 You get some real glimpses at David in those stories of how 
 he slew lions and bears on the mountains, and how he over- 
 came a Philistine giant in single combat. This Goliath story, 
 however, has all the metal taken out of it by the priestly his- 
 torian. The slender shepherd lad with his sling and his pebbles 
 will do for the infant class, but it will not do for anybody out- 
 side of the infant class. You get another genuine look at 
 David in that story of the murder of Saul's seven grandsons 
 
22 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 after Saul's death. The author has glossed the fact all it would 
 bear, but there is the fact. David meant to rid himself of all 
 rivals or possible pretenders to the throne. Read that touch- 
 ing lament for Saul in the first chapter of Second Samuel, 
 and then read this murderous account in the twenty-first 
 chapter, and imagine, if you can, the difficulties of the his- 
 torian. Even through the whitewashing you catch glimpses 
 here and there of the real character. David might collect the 
 money, but he could not build the temple, because he had been 
 "a man of blood." I suppose the simple fact is that he con- 
 templated building a temple to his god. Jahveh he worshiped 
 as the god of battle. He would offer praise to his warrior di- 
 vinity. Constant war too long delayed his building. You get 
 another very close look at David in that disreputable affair 
 with Bathsheba and Uriah. 
 
 No psalm singer was David, unless he sang the one hun- 
 dred and ninth psalm. No ode-writer and no gentle spirit was 
 he ; but a sensual, revengeful, implacable warrior, at once brave 
 and cunning, shrewd and resistless, but an infinitely selfish, 
 Cromwellian sort of patriot. He started out on Saul's founda- 
 tion to build a kingdom that should be his own kingdom, and 
 he slaughtered his enemies in the field and his rivals in the 
 home with equal zest. He had the kind of a conscience that 
 never protested until after the deed was done. Then he could 
 repent — David always repented in public — and make it right 
 with the people. 
 
 The intellectual development of the Israelites during that 
 eighty years of war had been so immense as to lift them out of 
 their lingering barbarism and set them on their feet as a civil- 
 ized, nationalized and progressive race. If Solomon had been 
 another Saul or David, Israel might have become a great 
 nation. 
 
 The time comes, late in history, when war, like a king, is a 
 hindrance to the progress of civilization ; but in the early pro- 
 duction of civilization all other forces combined do not equal a 
 great and successful war. It is the only force that can vitalize 
 the minds of primitive men. 
 
THE NATIONAL PERIOD. 23 
 
 Solomon, The Uuwise. 
 
 During that great century from i ioo to iooo B. C, the Israelite 
 tribes were developed into a nation. The possibility lay before 
 them of developing into a great nation. They, instead of the 
 Persians, the Medes, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Greeks, 
 might have risen to the position of power; might have be- 
 come, next to Egypt, the sovereign empire of the Mediterranean 
 world. 
 
 The ambition for great conquest and splendid empire must 
 have burned in the souls of all prominent men during the later 
 years of David's life. If the fatal mistake of hereditary king- 
 ship had not been immediately decided upon, if some great 
 soldier of David's army had succeeded him, as he succeeded 
 Saul, it is impossible to imagine how different the history of 
 the world might have been. 
 
 Another eighty years like that eighty under Saul and David, 
 another eighty years of conquest and centralization, another 
 eighty years of military discipline and of such wondrous intel- 
 lectual development as it would have brought, and the Medi- 
 terranean sea from the Nile around to the Bosphorus might 
 have been girded with the fortresses and the growing cities of 
 the great Israelite monarchy. But David had too much con- 
 fidence in his literary son. Solomon was to David, politi- 
 cally, what Richard Cromwell was to sturdy and resistless old 
 Oliver. If Mohammed had been succeeded by a peace-loving 
 and art-loving son, who wasted his father's revenue and wore 
 out the lives of his father's men in building needless mansions 
 in useless places, the Mohammedan empire so auspiciously be- 
 gun would have sunk down again into political insignificance. 
 After Mohammed came the great calif, Omer, and after him 
 other great califs, each winning his way to supreme command 
 by supreme abilities. Each successive ruler was a genius and 
 a master, like the first, and so the empire grew to wondrous 
 proportions. That David was strong enough to impose his 
 weak son upon the Israelite nation was the nation's fate. An 
 old and well-established nation can endure the Louis XVI's 
 who come along in the hereditary succession ; but a new 
 nation that is still fighting for existence, and whose work must 
 
24 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 be an outreaching and daring and conquering work, needs a 
 strong man at the helm. 
 
 Solomon was the kind of a ruler that would wreck even an 
 old and well-established kingdom ; no marvel if he wrecked a 
 kingdom that was yet in its pulpy babyhood. I do not refer 
 especially to Solomon's immorality, though in that regard he 
 was a bad enough example, and his entire influence must have 
 been to sensualize the nation, and sensuality is inherent weak- 
 ness ; still we must remember that some of the most immoral 
 men of history have been among the greatest and most suc- 
 cessful statesmen. They have had intellectual ability and per- 
 sonal force of character still greater than their passions. I 
 refer to the weakness of Solomon's statesmanship. 
 
 There are two ways in which a young man or a young nation 
 can invest money. If a young man puts money into land that 
 is well situated, where business will come to it and increase its 
 value, he prepares a fortune for himself. If he puts vast money 
 into a fine house, not a business house but a luxurious palace 
 for his personal comfort, that house, the repairing of it, the 
 keeping it up as an establishment, will absorb what fortune he 
 has left and itself will constantly decrease in value, and he shall 
 sink into abysmal debts. 
 
 It is exactly so with a young nation. It needs to put its 
 money and the energy of its manhood into the acquirement of 
 territory — all the territory it can protect. There were people 
 in America who thought that Adams and Jay and Franklin 
 were foolishly greedy in driving through that treaty of Paris 
 by which we secured the wild and wonderful territory from the 
 Blue Ridge to the great lakes and to the Mississippi. What 
 could we do with all that territory? We have found use for it. 
 Again, when Jefferson and Monroe carried the purchase of 
 Louisiana from Napoleon, paying him 115,000,000 that our 
 young nation could poorly spare, there were people who thought 
 it a great waste of money. But we have found magnificent 
 use for that territory. Just think what that Louisiana terri- 
 tory was — the states of Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, 
 Kansas, Nebraska, half of Minnesota, half of Colorado, North 
 and South Dakota, Wyoming and the Indian Territory. All 
 of that for $15,000,000 ! If that $15,000,000 had been put into a 
 
THE NATIONAL PERIOD. 2S 
 
 great palace, somewhere in the Pennsylvania woods, to moulder 
 and decay and leave not a wrack behind, you would have the 
 statesmanship of Solomon instead of the statesmanship of 
 Jefferson. 
 
 You remember how Florida and California and New Mexico 
 and Alaska have all been purchased, and how people com- 
 plained at the waste of money, and how every dollar of the 
 cost has proven to be worth a thousand or ten thousand dollars 
 to us. That is the way Rome built itself up, that is the way 
 Mohammedanism built itself, that is the way England and 
 every other great nation built itself — if not with an enormous 
 expenditure of money, then with an enormous expenditure of 
 men in battle — by reaching out for territory in the vigorous 
 days of the nation's youth. 
 
 Instead of using money and men that way, Solomon built 
 houses. He was a dilettante at architecture. We are told not 
 only that he put a fortune into the temple, but that for thirteen 
 years he was building himself a royal palace, and then he built 
 another royal palace up in Mt. Lebanon, and a third royal 
 palace for his Egyptian wife. Then we are told that he built a 
 number of cities outright — Tadmor in the wilderness, Beth- 
 horon the upper and Beth-horon the nether, Baalath, and many 
 more. Like Louis XIV. and Louis XV., instead of using the 
 national treasury to expand the national power and lay the 
 foundations of a great and prosperous future, he squandered 
 the treasury, sapped the life of the nation in vain and foolish 
 luxuries of architecture. 
 
 No man can understand the downfall of the French monarchy 
 until he walks through those miles and miles of costly palaces. 
 Louis XIV. alone spent more money on palaces that the United 
 States paid for that whole wondrous realm between the Missis- 
 sippi river and the Pacific ocean. We were able to buy from 
 France that magnificent territory, which we have carved into 
 eight or ten great states, for $15,000,000, largely because the 
 French monarchs had pauperized their nation with needless 
 and foolish architecture. 
 
 The French monarchs ought to have known better. They 
 had a melancholy example near at hand. Italy had pauperized 
 herself by architecture. The cathedrals had sapped the last 
 4 
 
26 RESULTS OF HIGHER .CRITICISM. 
 
 dollar of Italy's treasury, and the disreputable schemes put on 
 foot to raise money for the completion of St. Peter's broke the 
 back of the Catholic church and started the great Protestant 
 revolt. To this day Italy has not recovered from that pauper- 
 izing of herself to build cathedrals. The French monarchs 
 with their fatal palaces, and the popes with their suicidal 
 churches, might all have learned from Solomon, who squan- 
 dered the money and the manhood of his little empire on fine 
 houses which the heathen pulled down and annihilated. 
 
 The Crisis. 
 
 Before Solomon's death he had hopelessly weakened the 
 nation. Men become heroes in war. They became beasts of 
 burden in these vast royal enterprises of palace-building. In 
 less than thirty years after the completion of the temple the 
 Israelite nation broke asunder, and henceforth, for two hundred 
 and fifty years more, we have two insignificant, petty, quarrel- 
 ing kingdoms, so small and so weak and so hopeless of any po- 
 litical future as to demand our pity. In all political history that 
 is the most melancholy case of arrested development. 
 
 When a man or a nation has once held the reins of power, 
 has entertained great hopes and felt the hot pulse of lofty am- 
 bitions, and when those hopes and ambitions have been thrown 
 down and crushed ; in nearly every case that man or that 
 nation sinks into the weakness and the irritability of dis- 
 couragement. Year after year with the man, and generation after 
 generation with the nation, may be harbored the dream of 
 attaining and surpassing all that was lost; but the energy and 
 bravery to accomplish that dream are dead. The dream be- 
 comes a romance, and it may work a great inward change of 
 character, but the outward greatness seldom comes a second 
 time. More seldom to nations than to individuals. 
 
 " There is a tide in the affairs of men, 
 Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune ; 
 Omitted, all the voyage of their life 
 Is bound in shallows and in miseries." 
 
 That is even more true of the tides in the affairs of nations. 
 The flood tide of Israelite affairs was at the coronation of Solo- 
 
THE NATIONAL PERIOD. 27 
 
 mon. Solomon omitted to swing the nation up into the pro- 
 gressive current, and all its political voyage thereafter was 
 bound in shallows and in miseries. 
 
 We shall appreciate more clearly the case of Israel if we 
 pause to imagine what the history of our own American repub- 
 lic might have been. The flood tide of our American affairs 
 came in the winter of 1782-3. The Revolutionary war was 
 practically at an end. The work of arms was complete. Now 
 came the work of brains. The great quadruple treaty with 
 England and France and Spain, which was to fix the boundaries 
 resulting from the war, was in process of negotiation. In his 
 magnificent work on " The Critical Period of American History" 
 Fiske has told, better than any other, the interesting story. 
 There was a Spaniard, the Count Aranda, in that great con- 
 ference, who appreciated the danger of giving the Americans 
 too much land. He wrote a letter to his monarch which con- 
 tains this famous prophecy — prophecy of evil to monarchies : 
 " The federal republic is born a pigmy. The day may come 
 when it will be a giant — even a colossus. * * * The facility 
 for establishing a new population on immense lands will draw 
 thither the farmers and artisans of all nations." But with this 
 great danger in their minds, the Yankee shrewdness of John 
 Jay and the trip-hammer persistence of John Adams and the 
 deep, quiet, smooth manouvering of Benjamin Franklin, were 
 too much for the determined Englishmen and the wily French- 
 men and the tricky Spaniards. After eighteen months of the 
 most consummate skill and tact the greatest treaty in the his- 
 tory of statesmanship, the Treaty of Paris, was signed on Sep- 
 tember 3, 1783, and that treaty gave the "pigmy republic" all 
 the lands from the Atlantic to the Mississippi river, and from 
 the Great Lakes to Louisiana and Florida. England and 
 France were jealous of each other, and England and Spain 
 were jealous of each other, and France and Spain were jealous 
 of each other, and these long-headed Americans played upon 
 the jealousies of all of them, and at last verified the old fable 
 by dividing the broken shell among the kings and taking the 
 kernel themselves. 
 
 Now, suppose that our young republic had been represented 
 in that great council of nations by weak men or by men lack- 
 
28 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 ing in the genius of statesmanship, by men who could be 
 bought off from their great ambitions with money. Suppose 
 that our commissioners had been willing to accept a few mil- 
 lion dollars in lieu of that vast territory, and that the money 
 had been expended in a superb palace for the chief executive — 
 that would have been Solomon's kind of statesmanship. Sup- 
 pose the United States had been confined to this little strip of 
 land along the Atlantic coast from Boston to Charleston, while 
 England kept all the territory northwest of the Blue Ridge and 
 the Catskills and the White Mountains, while Spain and France 
 divided the whole great West and South between them ; that 
 would have given the United States the kind of an outlook 
 that Solomon gave to Israel. Suppose that as time went on, 
 three or four great nations should have grown up around us, 
 confining our republic to a narrower and smaller strip of land 
 along the Atlantic seaboard — that would have been a repetition 
 of the conditions of Israel in the times that followed Solomon. 
 " Solomon the Wise." He may have been wise as a proverb- 
 maker ; wise in the realm of the naturalist, when " he spake of 
 beasts and birds, and the hyssop that springeth out of the wall ;" 
 but he was far from wise as a nation-maker, and he spake very 
 foolishly when he ordered the energies of his people consumed 
 in heaping up stones into the likeness of royal palaces. 
 
 Suppose that our little shoestring republic, confined to the 
 stretching sands of the seashore, had broken in twain a few 
 years after the Declaration of Independence; one little republic 
 centered in Boston and the other little republic centered in 
 Richmond; and that these two republics should have con- 
 stantly quarreled and fought with each other — each growing 
 weaker and smaller as the nations which crowded them became 
 populous and rich and all powerful — that would have been to 
 repeat the experience of Israel and Judah, which found the 
 Assyrian and the Mede and the Babylonian and the Greek sur- 
 rounding them and cutting off all hope of national greatness. 
 
 With that termination of its political prospects the Hebrew 
 nation must either cease to exist or turn its energies into a new 
 channel. 
 
TEE NATIONAL PERIOD. 29 
 
 Religion and Literature of the National Period. 
 
 The great religious fact of this age was the building of the 
 temple. Our common ideas of that building are immensely- 
 exaggerated. The author of Chronicles makes it to have cost 
 three or four hundred millions of dollars, but many commen- 
 tators think that two or three extra noughts have crept into 
 that stupendous estimate. If we divide it by one thousand we 
 shall, perhaps, be as near the truth. The story of the dedica- 
 tion, during which one hundred and forty-four thousand sheep 
 and cattle were offered as sacrifices, also needs to be divided 
 by one thousand. Our common ideas of the elaborate ritual- 
 ism and the splendid priesthood of that age, must suffer a like 
 shrinkage. 
 
 There was no priesthood before there was a temple. Priests, 
 men who had come to be regarded as proper men to conduct 
 religious ceremonies on special occasions, there doubtless were 
 — but no organized priesthood. The priesthood was the natural 
 and necessary result of the temple. The men who were ap- 
 pointed to care for the temple and to lead in the sacrificial 
 offerings very soon formed a priesthood and claimed a mo- 
 nopoly in the entire conduct and regulation of worship. Of 
 course they would eventually claim special privileges and the 
 mediatorship between God and man. Priests always do. 
 
 There was doubtless a sincere feeling of devotion in building 
 the temple. Doubtless, also, there was a vast amount of 
 Solomon's personal vanity in the work. Just as doubtless, also, 
 there was a decisive sense of political genius in it. With po- 
 litical union of the tribes, with a centralized government in 
 David's new city, it was natural and proper that religion should 
 be centralized. The great fact in connection with the temple 
 was just this: it broke up the local ideas and habits of wor- 
 ship. It destroyed the isolated altars. It took the conduct of 
 worship out of the hands of the chiefs. It carried the hearts 
 of the people to Jerusalem, where was the centre of political 
 power. It linked together the images of God and the king. 
 It was the beginning of priestly routine. Henceforth Israel be- 
 came slowly but surely sacerdotal, ecclesiastical, and polytheism 
 slowly died out. With a splendid temple, the conception of 
 
30 BESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 God enlarged and spiritualized. The god of an ambitious 
 nation, worshiped by mitred and solemn priests in a gorgeous 
 building, was very different from the god of a stone that was 
 carried about in a box and captured by the Philistines. Let us 
 understand, however, that in comparison with the elaborate 
 ritualism of the second temple, under Nehemiah, the worship 
 in Solomon's temple was informal and primitive. It was 
 only the awkward and feeble beginning of a new order which 
 required five centuries to develop into the ecclesiasticism of 
 Nehemiah. The Hebrews were not yet a specially religious 
 people as they afterwards came to be. 
 
 As for the literature of this period, it is difficult to speak. In 
 the rush of intellectual development during that great century 
 from noo to xooo B. C, it is not unlikely that the Hebrews de- 
 veloped an alphabet and began a crude sort of half-hieroglyphic 
 writing. Two books especially are often quoted or mentioned 
 — " The Wars of the Lord"— and. the " Book of Jasker." The 
 first tells its contents in the title. It must have been an ac- 
 count of Israel's wars from Joshua to David. The other was a 
 book of national songs, and songs in honor of great men, such 
 as the song of Moses, the song of Deborah, David's ode to 
 Saul — all of them, of course, written by other people. 
 
 These early books were crude both in matter and form, and 
 were replaced by others on the same subjects at a later age. 
 Perhaps we have the gist of The Wars of the Lord in 
 Judges and Samuel, with the best fragments of Jasher in the 
 Psalms. It is also supposed that there had been worked out 
 during the National Period a primitive Decalogue, " Ten 
 Words " as it was anciently called — a group of moral and re- 
 ligious apothegms — but that, also, was recast by the finer moral 
 sense and higher religious instinct of a later age. We must 
 come along into the third period of the history before we find 
 any noble developments in writing or in theology or in the 
 moral sense or in religious feeling. 
 
TEE NATIONAL PERIOD. 31 
 
 [Religious Development. 
 
 In our childhood we supposed that, while other nations 
 were political, military, secular, the Irsaelities were always and 
 everywhere a praying and worshiping race, whose constant 
 thought was of God and whose greatest energies were expended 
 on theology and ritualism. In a modified sense that came to 
 be the fact under the prophets and priests, but it was not a 
 fact in the earlier centuries. 
 
 Every ancient nation developed very characteristic features. 
 The Greeks became a nation of artists and orators. The Rom- 
 ans became a nation of soldiers and lawyers. In the beginning 
 it was not so : the Greeks were not specially artistic, the 
 Romans were not specially given to the study of law, the 
 Irsaelities were specially religious. Every race characteristic 
 has been a development, a purely scientific result of natural 
 selection, an adaptation of thought and feeling to circum- 
 stances. There was something in the qlimate, something in 
 the geography, something in the incidents and accidents of its 
 early history to give this or that turn to the popular 
 thought of each race. Once an ancient race was started on a 
 particular line of development it followed that line with great 
 persistence and with a singleness of mind which would be im- 
 possible to modern nations. Ancient nations had little inter- 
 course with each other. They met only to fight. They did 
 not study each other's literature or politics or theology or 
 social customs. With a spirit of most intense bigotry and 
 most stolid exclusiveness they loved their own ideas and 
 customs, and blindly hated all other. 
 
 In these days an Englishman or a German or an American 
 would be a metropolitan sort of man whether you placed him in 
 Yucatan or Labrador, because he has studied the life of all 
 races and traveled everywhere and has absorbed the spirit of 
 universal genius. The world is his home ; human history is 
 his text book ; the laws of nature are his appeal. People are 
 getting rid of characteristics now. To be peculiar is not good 
 form. To dwell on one idea and neglect everything else is to 
 be deemed a crank or a madman. In olden times an entire 
 nation would pursue one line of thought or one line of work 
 century after century. Thus the Greeks pursued art, until 
 
32 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 they brought it to such perfection as we moderns cannot even 
 copy, muclj. less rival. Thus the Romans pursued law and the 
 science of government, until they became the teachers of all 
 ages in the matter of organization. Thus the Irsaelities pur- 
 sued the sentiment of religion, until their sermons and ex- 
 hortations and prayers and psalms of praise, their expressions 
 of worship and their longings for the spiritual and the im- 
 mortal, shall be the models for man's expression of his devout 
 feeling in all the coming years. 
 
 I have been asked why I keep the Bible on- my pulpit and 
 read texts from it if I do not believe that God wrote it. Go ask 
 the artist why he studies a Greek statue and constantly refers 
 to its lines of beauty, if he does not believe that God carved it. 
 Yes, we call a man a crank who knows only one thing ; but 
 your crank is likely to know that one thing a great deal better 
 than other folks know it. Genius is the respectful word — an 
 enemy says "crank.'' In his line the man of one idea is your 
 teacher, but you stultify yourself and put him in a false 
 position when you ask him to teach you anything that is not 
 in his line. We go to the Greek to learn art, but we do not go 
 to the Greek to learn morals or commerce or the science of 
 political organization. We go to the Israelite to learn religion, 
 but we do not go to the Israelite to learn geography or 
 geology or any natural science or politics or literature or 
 anything but the depth and height and wondrous express- 
 ion of religious feel ng. We do not even go to the Bible 
 to learn theology, or if we do we shall get sadly mixed. The 
 Bible has this one sole glory — it is the supreme and multiform 
 statement of religious feeling. That became the characteristic 
 of Israelite life, and the Bible contains just what the Israelites 
 lived. The Hebrews were not primarily religious in any re- 
 markable degree. That wonderful sentiment was developed 
 by the circumstances of their history. 
 
ISRAEL AND JUDAB. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Israel and Judah. 
 
 The New Ideal. 
 
 If our American Republic had been hindered, cramped, 
 divided, crushed, as the Irsaelite nation was, what, suppose 
 you, would have been the result in the thought and feeling of 
 our public leaders? What turn would their aspirations have 
 taken ? 
 
 Say what you will, the hopes and the aspirations of national 
 leaders are moulded by their conception of providence, by what 
 they conceive to be the "manifest destiny" of their nation. We 
 know what conception of manifest destiny has inspired our 
 American leaders. They have believed that God meant to 
 develop this into a wondrously great nation of liberty and 
 equality. Absolute faith in the unspeakably grand future of 
 this nation, its ability to cope with the whole world while it 
 should be a refuge for the oppressed of the whole world — that 
 has been the noble belief in providence which inspired every 
 great leader, and moulded public sentiment, from the days of 
 old Sam Adams until now. 
 
 Suppose that great dream had been utterly broken and 
 crushed. Suppose, as we come along down to the days of John 
 Quincy Adams and Jackson and Webster and Clay, that all 
 hope of our great political future had vanished, that all confi- 
 dence in the conquering power of our armies had been dis- 
 pelled, what then would they have concluded was the purpose 
 of God, the working of his providence, concerning us? What 
 would they have said was our manifest destiny ? I think it 
 perfectly clear that the children of the Puritans would have 
 said on this wise : " Our revolutionary fathers thought God 
 intended to build a great nation here, but we now see that 
 such was not his purpose. Our fathers believed that God 
 meant to establish a vast republic by means of armies and the 
 
84 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 acquisition of territory, but we now see that such was not his 
 method. The divine purpose in us is not a great nation. The 
 divine method is not the use of armies. God's purpose evident- 
 ly is that we shall be the conservators of true religion. We 
 shall keep inviolate and diligently teach the Puritan faith. 
 That is what our forefathers were guided across the wild ocean 
 to this wilderness for. That is why we were given our in- 
 dependence. That is why we were not allowed to become a 
 great nation. God would not have our minds distract with 
 vast political ambitions. He would compel us to the strict 
 recognition of our work as the conservators of religious truth. 
 We must recognize our mission on earth to be the preservation 
 and the spread of the Puritan faith." 
 
 That is the way our leading men would be talking and writ- 
 ing to-day if the treaty of Paris had been conducted by such a 
 diplomat as Solomon. That is exactly the way the leading 
 Israelites began to feel and talk and write in the sad century 
 that followed Solomon. For several succeeding centuries 
 that was the popular conviction. The great hope of political 
 empire was gone. Confidence in the prowess of kings and 
 armies was gone. When the keen edge of that disappoint- 
 ment had worn dull and smooth the leading men began to say, 
 " Our destiny is a religious one. We are to stand among the 
 heathen nations as representative of the true faith." It is 
 a curious fact, but an everlasting fact, that men accept the 
 weaknesses and mistakes just as they accept the wisdoms and 
 victories of their history as the working out of Divine purpose 
 in their behalf. The political weakness and ignorance of 
 Solomon came to be regarded as God's design. That is the 
 perfectly natural way in which the Irsaelites became an 
 especially religious people. The failure through Solomon's 
 incompetence of their political ambitions, the binding of their 
 political history in shallows and in miseries, gave the religious 
 turn to their thoughts and feelings. Then it was easy for them 
 to look backward and says: "Why, of course; strange we 
 never saw it before ! That is why God led our fathers out of 
 Egypt ; that is why He gave Canaan into their hands ; that is 
 why He drove out the heathen by the hands of Saul and 
 David ; that is why the tribes were cemented into a nation ; 
 
IBBABL AND JUDAH. 33 
 
 that is why we were not allowed to become a great and 
 ambitious nation ; that is why God keeps us alive, but keeps us 
 humble and weak among nations, that by means of us He 
 might preserve the true religion in the midst of the world's 
 great heathenisms." 
 
 Henceforward, generation after generation and century after 
 century, that was the conception which the Israelites had of 
 their manifest destiny. Thus in a perfectly natural way they 
 came to think of themselves as a chosen people, whose mission 
 in the world was theological and whose work and whose 
 methods must be different from the work and the methods of 
 all other nations. That new conception of their destiny grew 
 in seriousness and in power until it became a thing of marvel- 
 ous influence, not only in their souls but in human history. 
 This new and mighty dream that they were called of God to 
 preserve and teach the one true and holy religion — that dream 
 became their energy, their patient endurance, their light and 
 inspiration ; and it led them on, age after age, and developed 
 their strange, grand characteristics and made them the world's 
 religious teachers. 
 
 Prophets and Prophecy. 
 
 During the period of the Two Kingdoms, from 975 to 721 
 B. C, the kings in a limited sense were the rulers of the Heb- 
 rew people, but the prophets were the leaders of thought, the 
 moulders of character, the fashioners of the mental and moral 
 and political destinies of the race. The religious sentiment be- 
 came, as we have seen, the dominant impulse upon the division 
 of the kingdom. The men who stand for the dominant im- 
 pulse are the real directors of the currents of a people's life. 
 Just as the artists and orators and poets of Greece were more 
 powerful than the political rulers, because art and literature 
 were the dominant impulses of Greek life ; so the prophets were 
 the directing geniuses of Hebrew life, because religion had 
 come to be the chief concern of the Hebrews. 
 
 The prophets were not men of any official station, as the 
 popes and cardinals of the Catholic church, or even as the 
 ordained clergymen and preachers of the Protestant churches. 
 
36 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 They were not allied with any organization. They did not 
 aim to build a church or a party. They were unordained 
 preachers, independent reformers, orators, writers, like Savana- 
 rola, Luther, Wilberforce, Garrison, if these had been uncon- 
 nected with all organizations. They were the self-appointed, 
 God-called teachers of whole people, who spake for the truth 
 and the right as they understood it; and they were responsible 
 to nobody. They did their work as poets and artists and his- 
 torians do, speaking their word out of their own free convic- 
 tions. 
 
 The priests were officers of the Temple ; in a sense, of course, 
 officers of the government, dependent on the favors of kings 
 as the officials of an established church always are. The 
 priests of this third period of history were not the power they 
 afterward came to be. Their time had not yet arrived. The 
 prophets were the unorganized, isolated, independent moulders 
 and directors of popular thought and feeling. 
 
 Our childhood idea of the prophets was that they were men 
 to whom God revealed the secrets of the future, and that their 
 mission was to stand forth on occasion and tell the people or 
 the king what would come to pass a year or a century or 
 several centuries hence. The sooner we get over that childish 
 idea the better it will be for our intelligent appreciation of his- 
 tory. Whenever and wherever you find a book that contains 
 any minute and circumstantial description of a future historic 
 event you may rest assured that the book, or at least that part 
 of it, was written after the event. In that extraordinary and 
 miraculous sense of the word we shall be on safe ground, as 
 students of history, to put aside the thought that there ever 
 was any such thing as prophecy. Of course, in the ordinary 
 and natural sense of the word all literature is filled with pro- 
 phecy. All scientific teaching, all political exhortation, is packed 
 with predictions of what will come to pass under this or that 
 set of conditions. The elder Pitt predicted at the outset of the 
 revolutionary war that the American colonies would gain their 
 liberty. Count Aranda predicted that our pigmy republic 
 would become a colossus if it laid hands on the Mississippi 
 valley. The aged Toscanelli, watching the advance of science, 
 forty years before the ships of Columbus were fitted out, pre- 
 
ISRAEL AND JUDAH. 37 
 
 dieted that Europeans would yet sail westward across the 
 ocean to China. Seneca, the Roman philospher, at about the 
 year 50 A D. had predicted that travelers would yet discover a 
 western route to the Indies. Strabo, the Greek geographer, 
 writing about the time of Christ's birth, predicted that the 
 Atlantic ocean contained somewhere a vast, inhabited, un- 
 known world. These prophecies, of course, had nothing mira- 
 culous in them, and were not the results of any special inspira- 
 tion from heaven. They were the bold judgments of thought- 
 ful men who carefully studied the political or scientific con- 
 ditions. 
 
 Moral teachers who are careful students of social and nation- 
 al affairs have always been able to predict something of the 
 future course of events. When Eli Whitney invented the 
 cotton gin there were a thousand men who could dimly foresee 
 its political effects in American history — how it would increase 
 the cotton plantations — how it would increase the demand for 
 slave labor — how it would increase the demand for slave terri- 
 tory — and southern politicans, especially in Virginia, who had 
 hitherto been anxious to get rid of slavery, changed their 
 tactics. 
 
 Any man to-day who has a free mind and reads the great 
 literature of the age and notes the trend of popular thought 
 can predict the utter collapse and destruction of endless 
 punishment, and he can prophesy the condition of the religious 
 world when that disreputable old dogma shall no longer exist. 
 He can foretell with perfect clearness that churches will then 
 give more heed to moral culture than to the catechism, that 
 character and kindness will be considered more sacred than 
 creeds, that persecution for opinion's sake will be done away, 
 and that a thousand stupid prejudices which now burden and 
 humiliate religion will give place to the finer sentiments which 
 bless human society. 
 
 In this perfectly natural way the prophets looked out into 
 the future years and pictured the blessings and the calamities 
 that would come of good or evil conduct. Time was when 
 they predicted the downfall of their own nation for its own 
 vices. Because this appeal to the future was their habit, their 
 style of preaching, they were called, not reformers, as we should 
 
38 BESTTLTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 properly call them, but prophets. They were no more able than 
 any other class of men to see specific and unrelated events of 
 the future. A prophet could no more tell the name of a king 
 or give an account of a battle a hundred years in the future 
 than a politician to-day could name the President or outline 
 the campaign of the year 2000. When you read any such spe- 
 cific prophecy you may know it was not written till afterward. 
 Hebrew religion, like all other, made its first development as 
 a theology, then a later and better development as a moral 
 impulse. 
 
 Theological Prophets. 
 
 For about a hundred and seventy- five years after the division 
 of Solomon's kingdom the prophets were mainly concerned 
 with theology. Their great aim was to establish belief in the 
 God of Israel, and to root out the lingering polytheism of the 
 times. Elijah, who lived at the centre of that period, and who 
 was in the midst of his great battle at the year 900, may be 
 taken as the type of the theological prophets. The prophets 
 of that age were not writers. We only know them, as we know 
 the old kings, by the histories which were written centuries 
 later. Of course the characteristic stories concerning them 
 have been greatly exaggerated, but the exaggerations do not 
 remove the fact that these stories are characteristic. The story 
 of Elijah's sacrifice, as told in the eighteenth chapter of first 
 Kings, has been miraculously improved since its first telling, 
 but the spirit of it is characteristic. Not historically true in 
 the sense of giving the physical facts — historically true in the 
 higher sense that it tells us very clearly what kind of a reformer 
 Elijah was. He was such a reformer as Calvin, as Torque- 
 mada. If he could not persuade he would compel the accept- 
 ance of his theology. Nearly all theologies of the past were 
 established by physical force. The end justified the means, 
 though the means were deceit and murder. 
 
 From the year 975, on down to about the year 800 B. C, the 
 prophets toiled and battled for belief in the God of Israel. It was 
 a theological reform. It was followed by the great moral reform. 
 Moral reform is a higher and finer work than theological 
 
ISRAEL AND JUDAH. 89 
 
 reform, and comes later in social development. With the 
 coming of the great moral prophets who looked upon conduct 
 as equally sacred with and quite as important as belief, who 
 regarded virtue as vastly more important than ritualism — with 
 their advent, about the year 800 B. C, we enter upon the noble 
 and inspiring period of Hebrew history. 
 
 The Epoch of Reform. 
 
 From the division of the kingdom, 975 B. C, to about the 
 year 800 B. C, the work of the prophets was mainly directed 
 against polytheism, and their ideal was to establish the wor- 
 ship of Jahveh, as their national deity. Like nearly all other 
 theologians, these early prophets supposed that the one thing 
 needful in this world was correct belief, worship of the true 
 God. The century that followed, from 800 to 700 B. C, was 
 the great Hebrew epoch of moral teaching. Following back 
 the line of our religious ancestry through twenty-seven cen- 
 turies, we find three epochs of distinct and supreme moral 
 teaching. During these periods character is set above theology, 
 righteousness is considered more divine than ritual, a pure 
 heart is deemed more sacred than any creed or church or 
 day or book or form of worship, morality is glorified as the 
 very essence of religion. The last of these epochs was inaugu- 
 rated by Dr. Channing and furthered by the Unitarian church 
 and the great liberal literature of this century. The second 
 was the Christian era — the preaching of Jesus. The first was 
 the era of the ethical prophets in the 8th century B. C. 
 Throughout the rest of the long history the leaders and teach- 
 ers have placed the dominant emphasis on belief or ritual or 
 church organization. Of course it is not meant that morals were 
 neglected. Exactly that is meant which is said. The Temple 
 service and the ritualistic observances, among the Hebrews ; 
 the priestly hierarchy and the infallibility of the Pope, among 
 Catholics ; salvation by faith, among Protestants, have been 
 the chief concerns. These distinctly theological matters have 
 been placed above conduct, deemed more sacred than character. 
 Personal righteousness was the central and supreme demand 
 of the ethical prophets and of Jesus, as it has been of modern 
 
40 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 Unitarianism and modern literature. Of course it is not meant 
 that the ethical prophets were indifferent to theological belief. 
 Their growing conception of the unity of God was very sacred 
 to them. They would have looked on any heretic who believed 
 in the Trinity as a dangerous man. But they had come to see 
 that true belief was not as important as good conduct. Moral 
 questions are always the supreme questions of the age ; and woe 
 unto the religion, and woe unto the world, when the teachers 
 of religion do not appreciate that simple fact ! The great men 
 who stand for ideal morality must become the supreme men of 
 the age. Whether it be the independent Jesus, the Catholic 
 Savonarola, the heathen Buddha, the Protestant Luther, the 
 dissenting Wesley, the Unitarian Channing, the agnostic Adler, 
 or the Hebrew prophets of old ; whatever their theology, the 
 men of commanding genius in any age who plead and live out 
 a noble morality are the men whose names come down the his- 
 tory of nations with honor and praise. 
 
 Morals and Literature. 
 
 The beginning of this great age of Hebrew reform was also 
 the dawn of the golden age of Hebrew literature. It is nat- 
 ural that morality and literature should appear together. 
 Thought and ethics may be divorced, but in their normal es- 
 tate they are companions — the twin graces of humanity. Brain 
 and heart evermore incline to assist each other. The lesson of 
 history is, that when either is awakened from sleep the other is 
 aroused to action. The supreme moral impulse which Jesus 
 gave the world soon transformed the philosophies of the world. 
 The Italian renaissance of genius called forth Europe's great 
 moral reformation. The reform age inaugurated by Wilberforce 
 in England culminated in the poems of Browningand Tennyson, 
 the novels of Dickens and George Eliot, and the fine critical 
 literature represented by Arnold and Ruskin. The anti-slavery 
 agitation and the glorious literature of New England proceeded 
 from the same soul of progress. Morals and literature both re- 
 ceived a new and wonderful impulse about 800 B. C, in that 
 old Palestine home of the Hebrews. The result of this double 
 awakening was a greater and better conception of God. The 
 
ISRAEL AND JUDAS. 41 
 
 prophets no longer thought of their deity as the Lord of Hosts, 
 but as the Lord of Righteousness. In their broader ideas He 
 was no longer the God of Israel, but the God of Nations, whose 
 providence included and whose power blessed or punished the 
 heathen peoples round about. 
 
 The reform period had its roots in four prominent facts : a 
 gradual development of intellect and moral feeling ; a sense of 
 revolt from the formalism and hypocrisy of the priests ; a wide- 
 spread disgust with the cruelty and sensuality of the kings ; 
 and the birth of a number of great men. The political con- 
 ditions were propitious for a moral revolution. The extreme 
 depravity of rulers is always the occasion for reformers. The 
 kings of the two little nations, for these hundred and seventy- 
 five years, had been a race of petty and quarreling tyrants. 
 Some were respectable and weak ; some were able (in a small 
 degree) and disreputable. All in all they were a sorry lot. The 
 eighth century was ushered in by two of the strongest since 
 the time of Solomon. Uzziah, of " Judah," for several years was 
 a ruler of promise ; but he only fulfilled the hopes of his people 
 in a few successful wars, and in some commercial prosperity. 
 His later influence was a moral and spiritual degradation. 
 Jeroboam II., of " Israel," on a very limited scale, was a sort of 
 Louis XIV. — a fighter, a builder, and a sensualist. Jeroboam 
 II. had larger ability and worse influence than Uzziah. His 
 name was the synonym of vice. His prosperity meant immoral 
 luxury. The manners of the people, under such leadership, 
 were becoming utterly corrupt. Jeroboam II. reigned about 
 forty years ; Uzziah nearly fifty. Jeroboam II. had been twenty- 
 five years on his throne, Uzziah ten, when the eighth century 
 dawned. Under these rulers, of cruelty and sensuality, the 
 priesthoods flourished. Religion was a belief and a ritual. If 
 the rites were punctiliously observed right could be dispensed 
 with. Conscience gave place to conformity. Hebrewism was 
 foreshadowing the Catholicism of the dark ages — a luxurious 
 king, a servile priesthood, a debased people, with a spirit of 
 hypocrisy ruling them all. Reform there must be, or the time 
 of dissolution was at hand. 
 
 6 
 
42 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 Prophetic Literature. 
 
 From among the reformers of that magnificent eighth cen- 
 tury — how many of them we know not — stand forth the great 
 names of Amos, Hosea, Isaiah and Micah, as the names of 
 Phillips and Garrison stand out from the hosts of American re- 
 formers. The oldest book of our Bible, in the sense that it 
 was the first complete book put into its permanent form, is the 
 book of Amos. Whether it was written by Amos may be a 
 question. There seems no good reason why it should not 
 have been. At all events, it gives us the gist of his many 
 years of moral exhortation. It is such a book as we should 
 have if the salient points were taken from a volume of Phil- 
 lips' anti-slavery orations and combined into one short essay. 
 In about that sense it may represent all that Amos said and 
 wrote. Or it may be that this is simply one brief speech of 
 his, on some most important occasion ; scores or hundreds of 
 others having been lost. In this sense we must read nearly all of 
 our prophetic books. They preserve one, or a few, of the 
 prophet's great utterances ; or they are, in each case, a 
 resume of the prophet's work, unsparingly condensed, and 
 put into shape by a later hand. 
 
 The book of Amos is launched against the drunkenness, the 
 sensuality, the cruelty, the hypocrisy and the dead religious 
 formalism of the times. His argument is that the nations 
 round about — Damascus, Gaza, Tyre, Edom, Ammon, Moab — 
 have been punished with defeat and slaughter for their immor- 
 alities ; and that Israel must likewise suffer unless there be 
 a complete reformation. He considers national destruction as 
 the essential result of immorality. The crimes and vices of 
 the land are already so great that God may raise up an enemy 
 to put them to the sword any day. But he has faith that the 
 worst will only be a discipline, a scourging, and that the rem- 
 nant of loyal and true souls will be providentially assisted to 
 rebuild a moral nation. 
 
 Hosea follows Amos in the same strain. " The Lord hath 
 a controversy with you because of your lying and stealing 
 and killing and committing adultery." "Ye have sown the 
 wind and ye shall reap the whirlwind." This book is a series 
 of disconnected fragments of speeches or writings, and was put 
 
ISRAEL AND JUDAH. 48 
 
 together by the prophet, or some one else, at the close of his 
 labors. Kings, princes, recalcitrant priests, a dissolute public, 
 all share his burning denunciations. He attacks idolatry on 
 moral grounds. Faithfulness to Jahveh is .moral faithfulness. 
 "The law" is the law of conduct. He reminds us of Savo- 
 narola, especially in his appreciation that example is infinitely 
 more important than creed and ritual. " Like priest, like peo- 
 ple," was a home thrust at the bad example which nullifies good 
 teaching. Hosea, like Amos, concludes with a hope of moral 
 restoration and prosperity and peace. Happiness can only 
 come of virtue. A season of success attained by wickedness 
 ends in deeper doom. "The ways of the Lord are right and 
 the just shall walk in them ; but the transgressors shall fall 
 therein." Righteousness is a power in this world that must 
 bring destruction to the transgressor. 
 
 Next comes Isaiah. Our book of Isaiah, however, is three 
 or four books in one. The last twenty-seven chapters — xl. to 
 lxvi. inclusive — were composed by some unknown author of 
 the sixth century, two hundred years after the time we are 
 considering. That book, which is often called the work of the 
 Second Isaiah, was, by mistake or purpose, finally united to the 
 real Isaiah. Chapters xxxiv. to xxxix., inclusive, must also be 
 substracted from the original document. So must chapters 
 xxiv. to xxvii., inclusive. Then we must substract all but the 
 first nine verses of chapter xiii. ; the first twenty-three verses 
 of chapter xiv. and the first ten verses of chapter xxi. All 
 these are of much later date than Isaiah. 
 
 With all of these subtractions, the original Isaiah is still 
 fragmentary, in the sense that it is a joining together of various 
 prophetic utterances of different periods in the great prophet's 
 career. Great he was, as a man, a reformer, an orator and a 
 writer. Amos and Hosea, with the company of reformers 
 led on by them, had filled the earlier and middle years of 
 the century with an intense moral and intellectual energy. 
 The company led by Isaiah and Micah had their activity in the 
 latter part of the century, drawing on toward the year 700 B. 
 C. Literature had made a splendid development. Isaiah's 
 rhetoric is superb. He handles words and images like a 
 Shakespeare. His literary genius has been his misfortune in 
 
44 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 the hands of commentators. The universe could have re- 
 vealed no greater surprise to him than a fore-vision of the 
 fact that upon one of his figures of speech — vii : 14 — the 
 Christian church was to build a heaven-high system of theol- 
 ogy. Of course, verse 16 explains it perfectly. The "child" 
 to be born in less than a year from the time he speaks may be 
 called Immanuel — " God with us " — for before that child shall 
 grow out of his babyhood the land of Judah shall be free from the 
 tyranny of the kings which now oppress her. A great many 
 things in the Old Testament would be plain if theologians 
 looked for explanations instead of mysteries. The word " vir- 
 gin," in the 14th verse, is a forged mistranslation. The " butter 
 and honey " of the 15th verse refer to the coming peace and 
 plenty, when the threatening kings are dislodged, viii : 3 
 and 4, is another use of a like figure of speech ; but the theolo- 
 gians could hardly wrench that into any mysterious prophecy. 
 The thought is exactly the same in Isaiah that we have had 
 in Amos and Hosea. Nations are scourged for immorality. 
 The overthrow of armies, the destruction of cities, the blasting 
 of crops, the wasting of flocks and herds by disease ; drought, 
 flood, fire, mildew, hail, tempest, pestilence, all calamities, are 
 the scourges with which God makes chastisement for a peo- 
 ple's vice. According to the prophets, God often used one bad 
 nation to punish another bad nation. You must not conclude 
 that victory always means favor. When a nation has been thus 
 used as a weapon, it also may be scourged. It was thus that 
 the exhortations of the prophets often got tangled. We shall 
 see, later on, how this mistaken philosophy was appreciated. 
 Like Amos and Hosea, Isaiah belabored the dead and decay- 
 ing formalism of the priests : " To what purpose is the multi- 
 tude of your sacrifices unto me, saith the Lord. Your new 
 moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth." All the 
 nations in turn — Damascus, Assyria, Moab, Edom, Tyre, 
 Egypt, Ethiopia — are reviewed, and God's judgments upon 
 them set forth in heroic language. The same great national 
 hope re-appears in chapters xxxii. and xxxiii., which are the 
 closing chapters of this wonderful book. Scourging will do its 
 work. By suffering the people shall be reformed. A good 
 
ISRAEL AND JUDAH. 45 
 
 king will be raised up to ruie a righteous nation amid peace 
 and plenty. 
 
 Micah is a sort of a pocket edition of Isaiah. Isaiah was a 
 man of the city, with fine intellectual culture. Micah was a 
 countryman, who mixes his metaphors, but speaks the moral 
 truth with no uncertain sound. As was the case with Isaiah, 
 the early portions of Micah were written before, and the 
 later portions after, the destruction of Samaria and the 
 downfall of " Israel," in 721 B.C. The Assyrians, hovering upon 
 the northern kingdom with impending doom, finally striking 
 and destroying it, gave the words of these two prophets an 
 especial significance and force. 
 
 Micah's earlier rebukes are hurled directly at the capitals of 
 the two nations — Samaria and Jerusalem. Micah supposed 
 that if the Assyrians captured Samaria they would also sweep 
 down and desolate Jerusalem, whose doom he pictures in iii : 12. 
 He has the prophet's hope, however. By this punishment God 
 will purify the Hebrews, and then He will restore them, giving 
 them power to defeat the Assyrians, (v : 5-10). 
 
 V : 2 is another famous text which the theologians have griev- 
 ously tormented into a far-reaching mystery. Kuenen says 
 the translation should be : " From thee, O race of Ephrath," 
 (the stock of David) " small as thou art among Judah's fami- 
 lies, out of thee shall come forth one that shall rule over Israel, 
 one whose descent is from ancient times." The simple idea is 
 that, though the Assyrians plough both Samaria and Jerusalem, 
 God will raise up a king of David's line to establish the new 
 and glorious order. Micah was mistaken. The Assyrians 
 ploughed Samaria, but they did not plough Jerusalem; and 
 Samaria had no glorious restoration. 
 
 The last two chapters belong to a late period in tEe prophet's 
 life. The doom of Samaria weighs upon him and changes his 
 voice to a mournful pleading. The Hebrew people is repre- 
 sented as a child that is led out of Egypt and carefully nur- 
 tured. The grown child was instructed in God's moral law : 
 " What doth the Lord require of thee but to do justly and love 
 mercy and walk humbly with thy God?" The instruction was 
 neglected, the nurture forgotten ; but now comes penitence, 
 
46 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 and God confirms his oath that penitence shall be followed 
 with blessing. 
 
 Such is the teaching of these great prophets. There shall be 
 no abiding happiness without righteousness. God punishes 
 only that he may purify. A holy nation He will finally have, 
 though He drag his people through blood and fire to scourge 
 and burn the evil out of them. The prophets talk of nothing 
 beyond the immediate future of their own race. They see 
 nothing but a cleansed and restored Hebrew nation — a nation 
 in whose moral and spiritual influence, all the nations of the 
 earth shall be blessed. 
 
 False Readings. 
 
 All attempts to make them predict Christianity are forced, 
 unnatural, and in the highest degree absurd. However their 
 words may be adapted to the conditions of later centuries, or 
 to the dream rather than the conditions, there is no reason to 
 suppose that they, more than others, could tell what man 
 should be born in a given town, and what things he would say 
 and do, and what world-events should loom out of obscurity, 
 seven centuries in the future. They certainly made enough 
 mistakes in predicting the political greatness of their own na- 
 tion to show that the future was as heavily veiled from their 
 eyes as from ours. 
 
 But suppose the prophets could have foreseen that Christ 
 was to be born, that the Christian religion was to be established, 
 that their own religion was to be thrust out and persecuted, 
 that the temple they adored was no longer to be the centre and 
 home of God's church, that the nation they loved better than 
 their own lives was to be broken, dismantled, scattered to the 
 four winds — would they have prophesied any such event very 
 joyously ? They are pictured as looking forward to the ruin of 
 all their hopes and ambitions and prides with unspeakable 
 delight — does that seem quite natural ? 
 
 Can you imagine a race of people, century after century, fore- 
 telling the downfall of everything they hold dear in their social 
 and political and religious life; looking forward to that calam- 
 ity with rapture ; toiling and suffering on for its accomplish- 
 

 ISRAEL AND JUDAH. 47 
 
 ment ? If you cannot, then you must conclude that those al- 
 leged prophecies of Christ do not refer to the coming of the 
 Second Person of the Trinity. 
 
 What was the one supreme idea of the Jewish religion ? The 
 Unity of God. That doctrine they held with all the tenacity 
 of life and love. For it they were ever ready to become 
 martyrs. Can you imagine them constantly and happily pre- 
 dicting a new doctrine, which was to dethrone and root out their 
 own beloved faith and send their children forth to centuries of 
 wandering and persecution ? If you cannot, then you must 
 conclude that they never meant to prophesy the Christ of 
 Christian theology. 
 
 In Matthew ii : 15, we read one ol these so-called predictions : 
 "Out of Egypt have I called my son." That is a garbled half 
 sentence from Hosea. Matthew assumes to tell us what Hosea 
 meant. He meant that the babe Jesus would be brought back 
 from Egypt, after Joseph and Mary had fled thither to es- 
 cape Herod. Luke does not agree with Matthew. Luke 
 positively denies the flight into Egypt; recognizes that 
 Herod had been several years dead when Jesus was 
 born ; and says that Joseph and Mary, having no occasion to 
 fly into Egypt or elsewhere, took the child immediately to 
 Jerusalem, and "presented him in the Temple," and then "went 
 to their own home in Nazareth." Read these contradictory ac- 
 counts in the second of Matthew and the second of Luke. 
 Matthew is always on the watch for prophecy of Christ. He 
 presumes, it would seem, that few people read the Hebrew 
 scriptures, and they with blinded eyes. The Christian church 
 has diligently followed Matthew. 
 
 Now, in simplest candor, what did Hosea mean ? Turn to 
 xi : 1, " When Israel," (the people of Israel) "was a child, then 
 I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt." It is this 
 figure of speech — the Hebrews of the Exodus as God's child — 
 that Micah quotes in vi 14. The prophets were not predictors 
 of distant and mysterious events, but moral exhorters whose 
 words always apply to their people's immediate future. 
 
48 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 Drama. 
 
 The books of the four great prophets above named, (with one 
 possible exception,) contain all the prophetic writings of the 
 eighth century that have been preserved. They are but a few 
 fragments from what must have been an abundant reform 
 literature. It is impossible that an age could produce such 
 writings and they be its entire production. We might as well 
 think it possible that New England, in this nineteenth century, 
 could produce Emerson's New England Reformers, Whittier's 
 Eternal Goodness, Lowell's Bigelow Papers, and Phillips' oration 
 on Daniel O'Connell, and produce nothing else. That were as 
 impossible as to suppose that the first and only architecture of 
 Europe consisted of the cathedrals of St. Peter's and Cologne. 
 It is possible to imagine that, three thousand years hence, all 
 else will have perished and been forgotten, and that a few of 
 these greatest and finest products will be all that the men of the 
 year 5,000 shall have or know of the architectural and literary 
 works of Europe and America. 
 
 The exception, above noted, is a part of the book of Zecha- 
 riah. Some portions of chapters ix to xiii may have been writ- 
 ten in the eighth century. If so, they were re-written and 
 added to by a later hand. 
 
 There were other kinds of writing than the prophetic in that 
 eighth century. There was a dramatic literature as well as a 
 reform literature. There was history, and poetry, also. 
 
 In her delightful book on Egyptian explorations — Pharaoh's 
 Fellahs — Miss Edwards says that we have looked at mummies 
 until we have associated all Egyptian life with death, and can 
 hardly imagine that Egyptians ever laughed and danced and 
 made love like other folks. Our traditional conception of the 
 Bible is not less absurd. We have studied its solemn exhort- 
 ations until we can hardly imagine a Hebrew writer putting his 
 thoughts in any other than a hortatory mould, or as having any 
 other thought than the conduct of ceremonial worship, or the 
 lurid thunderings of the law. 
 
 That the Old Testament is what we have left of an ancient 
 nation's literature is slowly dawning upon the public mind. 
 That the Hebrews wrote history, just as other people did ; that 
 
ISRAEL AND JUDAH. 40 
 
 they clothed their ideas in the forms of poetry, national songs, 
 dramas and novels, just as other people have, is at last getting 
 to be understood. 
 
 One sample only of the dramatic writing of the eighth cen- 
 tury remains to us — The Song of Solomon. This book has suf- 
 fered unspeakable torture at the hands of theologians. In 
 their irrational demand that it shall be a religious book, and 
 even a book of Christian predictions, they have made it both 
 ridiculous and repulsive. Even as a drama it is not supremely 
 chaste, but as a sermon it were altogether broad. A style of 
 dress may be allowed in the ball room and at the bathing beach 
 that would be scandalizing in church; so a certain style of 
 writing that a drama will bear were quite beyond endurance in 
 a solemn religious appeal. You certainly would not appre- 
 ciate " Romeo and Juliet " if you read it with the impression 
 that Shakespeare meant it for a theological treatise — a re- 
 ligious allegory — in which Romeo represented Christ and 
 Juliet the Church. Such, however, is the very ridiculous 
 interpretation we have all our lives heard given to the Song 
 of Solomon. Let us understand, first of all, that this book 
 is not theology but drama ; not religious, but secular. Of 
 course it has a purpose — a moral purpose, as we shall presently 
 note — a purpose that is not at all complimentary to Solomon. 
 
 The exhortations of the prophets had wrought a wonderful 
 work in purifying the family life of the Hebrew people. It can 
 be safely said that no other ancient people esteemed the sanc- 
 tities of the home so highly as did the Hebrews : but the 
 Hebrews were not always so. Abraham and his Hagar, Jacob 
 and his four wives, David and his Bathsheba, Solomon and his 
 harem of a thousand women, do not indicate that the early 
 Hebrews cared more for domestic purity than the early Greeks 
 or Romans. Their primitive laws in the book of the Covenant 
 have nothing to say against polygamy. But, with the coming 
 of the great prophets, the Hebrews came to be a people of 
 exceptional domestic purity. 
 
 Notwithstanding his vices, the Hebrew people always rev- 
 erenced Solomon, because he built the temple. His vices, 
 however, must be rebuked, and the purity of marriage must be 
 insisted on. That rebuke of royal vice and that insistance on 
 
 7 
 
BO BESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 humble virtue compose the purpose of Solomon's Song. It 
 is a song about Solomon, to his royal shame. 
 
 The heroine of the drama is the Shulamite maiden, who 
 lives in her mountain home and loves a shepherd lad of her 
 own class. In one of his royal progresses to his summer pal- 
 ace in the mountains, Solomon caught sight of this beautiful 
 and happy peasant girl. He has her kidnapped and brought 
 into the palace, where his court ladies strive to win her to their 
 own disgraceful life. Their soft words and the king's enchant- 
 ments are all in vain. The poor girl wanders about and bewails 
 her absent shepherd lad. At last she escapes the gilded rep- 
 robates, finds her lover, and is welcomed home by her brothers 
 and her mother. 
 
 Of course this drama did not stand alone as the one pro- 
 duction of its kind in that age of literary activity. It is the 
 single remnant that has floated down to us. It tells us that 
 they had actors and theatres in those days, and that the proph- 
 ets had succeeded in capturing and reforming the stage. It is 
 altogether likely that the great majority of the plays were sup- 
 pressed, and that this alone, because of its moral lesson, gained 
 the favor of endurance. 
 
 Wisdom Literature. 
 
 In all ages there are men of practical worldly thought, keen 
 observers of character and conduct, men of moral conviction, 
 who are yet entirely dissociated from religious observances and 
 theories. They may not be atheists nor materialists, but their 
 religious belief, if they have any, is given no special place or force 
 in their estimate of life in this world. Their standpoint is now ; 
 they study actions ; they see results ; they seek what is wise — 
 not present policy or gain, but worldly wisdom. They proclaim 
 those methods— in the home, in society, in business, in politics, 
 that support character, make a worthy reputation, build up the 
 public virtue, insure an honorable success. Such men are wide 
 awake to the foibles, faults, hypocrisies, assumptions and cant 
 of the world ; and with their sturdy ethical demands they are 
 likely to mingle a heavy spicing of ridicule. Proverbs and 
 Ecclesiastes are the chief remnants which have come down to 
 
ISRAEL AND JUDAH. 31 
 
 us of this old-time wisdom literature. These books cover a 
 period of several centuries. A portion of Proverbs only belongs 
 to the eighth century. Chapters x : i, to xxii : 16, compose the 
 earliest collection. Of course these bright, pithy, profound 
 sayings are a collection; the author simply put them into a 
 versified or metrical form. He doubtless gathered them from 
 all the literature of his acquaintance, as Allibone and Brewer 
 and others have gathered their books of quotations. He also 
 copied from oral tradition, folk lore, popular sayings. The 
 Hebrews, as a people, then as now, were peculiar for their 
 incisive observations of character and conduct. A people 
 whose outward ambitions were so constantly foiled would 
 naturally become a keen-witted people — shrewd, critical and 
 somewhat cynical. Give the Irish a few generations of great 
 commercial and military success, and they will become as stolid 
 as the English. 
 
 This oldest collection of proverbs is dedicated to Solomon, 
 (x: 1.) The collector had no design of imposing Solomon as 
 the author of them all. He may have been the author of some. 
 The licentious king had a reputation for seizing upon and using 
 the weaknesses of people. He recognized heathen religions, 
 not in the broad spirit of charity, but as a political measure. 
 He exercised very quick wit in finding out the real mother of 
 a child whose parentage was in dispute. He may have made 
 proverbs — but not by the thousand. He had the reputation 
 for a certain kind of shrewd worldly wisdom. From this ded- 
 ication of a wisdom-book to his name his reputation as the 
 "wise man" rapidly grew and exaggerated in all directions, 
 till we have him not only as the author of all Proverbs, and 
 Ecclesiastes, but as religiously wise and praying at the Temple's 
 dedication for nothing but wisdom. Thus does the ideal of a 
 man grow and become a wondrous thing centuries after the 
 man is dead. One or two memories concerning a prominent 
 character are seed, in the popular thought, for an exuberant 
 harvest. 
 
 This proverb collector was also influenced by the great reform 
 zeal of the prophets. What we may properly call the first book 
 of Proverbs— x: to xxii: 16 — is a book of moral wisdom. It 
 teaches that good conduct is wise ; that honesty, in the long 
 
52 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 run, is policy; that selfishness is self-defeat; that hypocrisy- 
 does not conceal fraud ; that lies betray their own falsity ; that 
 deceit ensnares the deceiver ; that " the Devil is an ass." Duty 
 and conscience and lofty enthusiasms and ideal purposes and 
 the voice of God and the spirit of self-sacrifice are not appealed 
 to. It is wise to do right. 
 
 Poetry. 
 
 David's reputation as a psalm-writer sprang from some seed 
 of tradition in these later centuries and grew to a proportion 
 which rivaled Solomon's wisdom. It is not at all probable that 
 David's posthumous reputation has as much historic ground 
 as Solomon's. It is well-nigh impossible that he composed any 
 of the psalms of our Bible. It is very difficult to trace the 
 origin of any complete psalm farther back than the eighth 
 century — three hundred years after the death of David. A 
 few may be earlier. The great majority are later. Such psalms 
 as the third, fourth, fifth, eleventh, twentieth, twenty-first and 
 twenty-second read like the prophetic utterances of Micah. 
 They represent the threatened and afflicted nation as a man in 
 deep trouble, whose virtue God will reward when the enemies 
 are driven back. The exhortations to purity, steadfastness, 
 trust in God ; the awful sense of impending doom and scourg- 
 ing ; the scathing rebukes of formalism, hypocrisy and unright- 
 eous policy, apply with great force to the period of the prophets, 
 when the very existence of both kingdoms was threatened, and 
 " Israel " was actually being ruined. 
 
 The Decalogue. 
 
 The Ten Commandments are found in Deut. v. and in Ex. xx» 
 There are slight differences which indicate separate authors, 
 if not something more. In Deuteronomy we read : " Observe 
 the Sabbath." In Exodus we have : " Remember 'the Sabbath." 
 " Observe " has the look of an original promulgation. " Re- 
 member " carries our thought back to a former promulgation. 
 In Deuteronomy the phrase occurs, and is repeated : " As 
 Jahveh thy god commanded thee." This carries the mind 
 
ISRAEL AND JTJDAH. 83 
 
 back to the tradition that Jahveh had spoken — inclines us to 
 feel that this was the original writing. The absence of that 
 phrase in the Exodus version, coupled with the use of the word 
 " remember," may be accounted for on the supposition that 
 Exodus was much later, and that it was based on this prior 
 writing of the same set of laws. In Deuteronomy we also read, 
 concerning the command to keep the Sabbath: "That thy 
 man servant and thy maid servant may rest, as well as thou." 
 The absence of this phrase from Exodus may indicate that a 
 time was come when servants had less the character of slaves 
 and more the character of citizens ; which would make the 
 special urgency in their behalf not only needless but somewhat 
 offensive. Another significant phrase of Deuteronomy which 
 is omitted in Exodus is found in the command to honor father 
 and mother — " That it may go well with thee." That voices 
 the prophetic belief of the eighth century in physical blessing 
 as the direct result of moral feeling. That belief changed be- 
 fore the Decalogue of Exodus was written, and the phrase im- 
 plying it was carefully left out. 
 
 The special things, however, which indicate different authors 
 and different dates for these two versions of the moral law, are 
 the different reasons given for keeping the Sabbath. Deut. 
 v : 15, sanctifies the Sabbath because on that day of the week 
 Jahveh delivered the Israelites from Egypt. E^x. xx : 11, sancti- 
 fies the Sabbath because God rested from his work of creation 
 on that day. This reason is also given in Gen. ii : 3. Such dis- 
 crepancy can only be accounted for by a long lapse of time and 
 the development of new theories. The Decalogue of Exodus 
 is a much later document than the Decalogue of Deuteronomy 
 — three centuries later, perhaps. 
 
 The original legislation concerning the Sabbath is found in 
 that primitive code of Tribal laws, The Covenant. (Ex. xxi. to 
 xxiii:i9.) Inxxiii:i2, the old tribal chiefs simply declared 
 that the seventh day should be a day of rest. It was not then 
 a holy day — it was a mere holiday. It was not then a day of 
 worship, not a sacred day, was not called the Sabbath. It was 
 a simple secular rest day. They had holy days in that Tribal 
 time, but they were anniversaries, (xxiii : 14-17.) Not having 
 any Sabbath of worship, of course they gave no reason why it 
 
54 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 should be sanctified. Reasons for a sacred day are generally- 
 found long after the day has slowly and unconsciously evolved 
 its sacredness out of casual events and gradually developing 
 customs. 
 
 The week is a natural division of time. It corresponds, prac- 
 tically, with the quarter-moon. The Canaanites, whose lan- 
 guage and some of whose customs the Hebrews adopted, had 
 this natural division of time, measured by the four phases of 
 the moon. The Chaldeans, and, it seems, all Semitic peoples 
 — the Arabians included — had this method of reckoning. This 
 natural division of time, the week of seven days, is the origin 
 of more things than the unstudious ever dreamed. The num- 
 ber seven, so significant in Hebrew literature, borrowed all its 
 mystery from the quarter-moon. Upon that simple division 
 into sevens, presented by the week, the whole great structure 
 of Hebrew ritualism and ceremonial observance was erected. 
 Everything went by sevens. The late account of creation, 
 (Gen. i : i to ii : 4,) was cast into this poetic mould, and made 
 to correspond with the week of seven days. That was an idea 
 so bold and so grand that the final editors of the Old Testa- 
 ment deemed it worthy of the very first place in Hebrew lit- 
 erature ; and so, discarding all claims of date in authorship, 
 they placed it at the beginning of their Bible. 
 
 It was perfectly natural that one day of the seven should be 
 set apart as a day of rest. It was natural that a thrifty people 
 like the Hebrews should work first and rest afterward. Their 
 spirit of energy suggested the last day of the recurring period 
 as the holiday. In this arrangement the old chiefs of the 
 Tribal time showed their business principles. It was perfectly 
 natural that, as the Hebrews became more and more of a re- 
 ligious people, their holiday should be slowly transformed into 
 a holy day. It was altogether natural, when the Temple was 
 built and a priesthood began to form, that the day of rest 
 should come to be a day of stated worship. Many centuries 
 after that, when the first chapter of Genesis was written, it was 
 the most natural thing in the world that the writer should 
 ascribe to God the day of rest which man had so long observed. 
 Do we not always ascribe our own best things — customs or 
 
ISRAEL AND JTJDAH. 33 
 
 thoughts or feelings — to God ? As time goes on we imagine 
 that the origin was not with us, but with him. 
 
 If you compare the Covenant with the Decalogue you can- 
 not escape the fact that the latter is a wondrous moral improve- 
 ment upon the former. Instead of a harsh penalty attached to 
 the cursing of father or mother, we have the Gospel- like ex- 
 hortation to honor father and mother. Instead of severe pun- 
 ishment for certain base forms of sensuality, we have the higher, 
 nobler, wide-sweeping, brief, delicately expressed seventh com- 
 mand. Instead of the blunt death sentence for worshiping 
 other gods, we have the lengthened and reverent argument for 
 worshiping Jahveh. The negative and cruel spirit of the Cov- 
 enant gives large place to an affirmative and inspiring spirit in 
 the Decalogue. The affirming spirit of the Gospel is not 
 reached, but we have a long step toward it. There is a great 
 lifting upward from barbarian threats to moral aspirations. 
 This change could only be accomplished by the slowly civilizing 
 processes of time. We must come this side of the Tribal Period, 
 this side of Samuel's killing of Agag and David's destruction 
 of Uriah and the sons of Saul, before the great command, 
 "Thou shalt not kill," could be properly appreciated. We must 
 come this side of Solomon for any deep appreciation of the 
 seventh command. 
 
 Indeed, the moral tone of the Decalogue will fit no period 
 of Hebrew history prior to the era of the prophets. That this 
 great, brief code was a gradual formation is altogether probable. 
 It may have grown from slight beginnings and by slow ad- 
 ditions — often re-cast and simplified, until the present form, as 
 we have it in Deuteronomy, was at last the universally recog- 
 nized form. We cannot be far out of the way if we date the 
 Decalogue of Deuteronomy somewhere in the eighth century 
 and credit the great ethical prophets with its ultimate formu- 
 lating. The " Tables of Stone," and all the other traditions 
 which gathered about its miraculous origin and its ancient his- 
 tory, may simply be regarded as traditions. 
 
36 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 The Hexateuch. 
 
 The earliest written history of Hebrew literature, of which 
 we can speak with any definiteness, was " The Wars of J ah- 
 veh" mentioned in Numbers xxi : 14. That old book perhaps 
 began with Moses and ended with David, and was simply a re- 
 cital of the exploits of those ancient martial heroes. The sub- 
 stance of it was incorporated in Judges and Samuel, though 
 perhaps in Joshua and the Pentateuch also some use was- made 
 of its older portions. The book itself became extinct when 
 these larger histories were written. 
 
 There must have been other documents from which the great 
 unknown historian of the eighth century drew, for the earliest 
 parts of the Pentateuch, but they are irretrievably lost and 
 wholly forgotten. The separate hero-stories, of Moses, 
 Joseph, Abraham, Noah, and the older traditions reaching back 
 to Adam, must have been separately wrought out, not only as 
 oral accounts, but into written form, and long familiar, before 
 they were gathered up and re-cast upon the framework sup- 
 plied by the eighth century historian. This, however, seems to 
 be a fact, — that no connected and continuous recital of the 
 ancient history, from Adam to the Conquest of Canaan, was 
 written until the eighth century. 
 
 It is here that we enter upon the most difficult problem 
 of Hebrew literature. If it could merely be said that the 
 Pentateuch and Joshua were written in the eighth century, by 
 some one who fused the oral traditions and documents of 
 his day, with the fire of his own moral enthusiasm, into this 
 great Hexateuch as it now stands — then the problem were 
 simple. But that cannot be said. These six books (Pentateuch 
 and Joshua), are not the work of one hand, nor of one time. 
 In the eighth century the history of that old period was writ- 
 ten. In the fifth century it was again written from a different 
 standpoint. The eighth century history was a distinctly lit- 
 erary production, with a moral purpose, influenced by the 
 prophet spirit of the time. The fifth century history was a 
 priestly production, with an ecclesiastical and ritualistic pur- 
 pose, influenced by the spirit of Ezra and Nehemiah. These 
 two histories were then blended, dove-tailed, braided, para- 
 graph by paragraph, into one. How to separate them, untangle 
 
ISRAEL AND JUDAH. 57 
 
 them, and lay the two accounts side by side as separate books, 
 has been the complex, but at last successful, work of modern 
 scholars. 
 
 Before an indication of that great work is given, we must 
 make certain important subtractions, that we may see just 
 what the braid consists of. The Covenant (Ex.xxi.toxxiii. : 19,) 
 must be put aside as a separate book. Jacob's Blessing (Gen. 
 xlix.,) must be left out as another distinct book. The Deca- 
 logue also stands by itself as a complete production. What is 
 known as " The Law of Holiness," comprising ten chapters of 
 Leviticus, (xvii. to xxvi., inclusive,) is also a complete book with in 
 itself, and belongs to a time and an occasion hereafter to be 
 considered. Then the entire book of Deuteronomy, with the 
 exception of the Decalogue and the dying Song of Moses and a 
 few other small paragraphs contained in it, is to be put aside, as 
 the complete production of a still different time. All of these 
 were bodily incorporated by the editor who at last moulded the 
 Hexateuch into its present shape. After making all these sub- 
 tractions we can apply ourselves to the problem of unbraiding 
 the double history, and may arrive at some rational view of 
 what was written in the eighth century. This so-called " Hex- 
 ateuch " is practically a pentateuch with Deuteronomy dropped 
 out and Joshua substituted. 
 
 Double Authorship. 
 
 The most casual reader notes that the first two chapters of 
 Genesis contain two distinct accounts of creation. The second 
 chapter should commence with verse 4. That verse is the 
 beginning of the eighth century history. The account of crea- 
 tion in Gen. i: 1, to ii : 3, inclusive, is by the writer of the 
 fifth century. Chapter ii. represents the original earth as dry 
 and parched : chapter i. represents it as a chaos covered with 
 water. According to the second chapter, man was first created, 
 then plants, then animals, then woman : while the first chapter 
 gives the more scientific order — plants, animals, man and 
 woman together. The second chapter tells us distinctly that 
 one man and one woman were created : while the first chapter, 
 with latitude for wider thinking, simply says : " Male and 
 8 
 
38 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 female created He them." The second chapter represents the 
 creation of the earth and the heavens as the work of one 
 day : while the first chapter divides creation into six days of 
 successive labor, with a day of rest. The second chapter has 
 a very man-like conception of Deity — the Lord is pictured as 
 working like a carpenter or a sculptor ; as walking, talking, 
 breathing, calling aloud ; a being from whom Adam can hide 
 among the bushes; a being who cannot look forward a single 
 day and see what will come to pass : while the first chapter had 
 a thought of God that is lofty and spiritual. He speaks from 
 out the heavens, and the earth and the stars appear. All 
 through the second chapter the thought is on a lower plane, 
 which is conclusive evidence that it was written first. The 
 more spiritual ideas of God came later. There had been a 
 great intellectual development in Hebrew life between the 
 writing of the second and the first chapters of Genesis. The 
 writer who could say that the primitive earth was dry and that 
 man appeared before animals and plants, had no faintest con- 
 ception of science. When a writer states that the primitive 
 earth was a waste of water one is inclined to suspect that he 
 had some acquaintance with the early Greek philosophers. 
 Those two theories of geography — the dry theory and the wet 
 theory — the one assuming that all unknown parts of the earth 
 were land, the other assuming that all unknown parts were 
 water — those two theories can be traced right down through 
 all geographical writing, from the early Greek authors to the 
 European map-makers of the sixteenth century. Always and 
 everywhere the more thoughtful have held to the water theory. 
 There is no reason why the author of the first chapter should 
 not have known something of Greek speculation on this sub- 
 ject. Thales, Anaximander and Pythagoras had all given 
 their teachings from one to two centuries before this book was 
 written. 
 
 The difference of style and thought in these first two chap- 
 ters was a key with which modern scholars unlocked the 
 problem of double authorship. As they looked carefully they 
 found double accounts of several of the principal events in the 
 book of Genesis. They found everywhere the same character- 
 istic difference of style and thought. One writer has the style 
 
ISRAEL AND JUVAH. 39 
 
 and thought of the eighth century prophets ; the other has the 
 style and thought of the fifth century priests. 
 
 When we come to the account of the Flood, the eighth 
 century historian tells us, (Gen. vii. : 2,) that Noah took into 
 the ark of "clean " beasts seven pairs each : of " unclean," one 
 pair each. The fifth century historian tells us, (Gen. vi. : 19,) 
 that of all he took one pair each. The fifth century writer, 
 who was likely a temple priest, is not willing to confess that 
 Noah had been instructed as to the sacramental difference 
 between "clean" and "unclean." He is intent on making 
 Moses the ecclesiastical law-giver, the great founder of the 
 priesthood. He pushes every ceremonial back to Moses, but 
 will only allow the most general ordinances to go farther, if he 
 can help it. 
 
 Having become sufficiently acquainted with the character- 
 istics of these two writers to unbraid the book of Genesis, the 
 critics proceeded with their work, making the careful division 
 of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Joshua. It will be con- 
 venient to designate the writer of the eighth century B. C. as 
 the Prophet-historian, and the writer of the fifth century B. C. 
 as the Priest-historian. 
 
 The Prophet-Historian. 
 
 The eighth century historian, as we might expect him to be 
 in that age when the prophets were reforming everything, was 
 a reformer. He writes history with a purpose. His purpose is 
 to teach morality and providence, to account for everything on 
 moral and providential grounds. He compels every event to 
 preach a sermon, in which the good man, or the penitent man, 
 or the man divinely selected for a, mission, is miraculously 
 blessed of Jahveh. He believed with the prophets that all 
 forms of human suffering and all forms of evil in nature are 
 due directly to somebody's crime. Everything in the world 
 that is not good and happy must be referred to human sin. 
 
 His first care is to explain how men became sinners. For 
 that explanation he borrowed the Persian story of the Garden. 
 He is not prepared to bring in the philosophy of Dualism, 
 with Persia's two gods ; he could not thus abandon the staunch 
 
60 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 Hebrew monotheism ; and so he makes use of a serpent — inti- 
 mating that originally the serpent was a different kind of a 
 creature, which was humiliated from its exalted state and made 
 a crawling creature, by the curse that was put upon it. But the 
 gist of the story is human disobedience to Jahveh's command. 
 
 He then proceeds to give a moral reason for the presence of 
 briars and thistles on the earth, and why it is that people must 
 work for a living. It was because man sinned. The peculiar 
 and especial sufferings of woman, and the fact that she is weaker 
 than man, and in so much of human history has been the slave 
 of man, are all accounted for on the supposition that Eve was 
 the first to sin. 
 
 In the story of Cain and Abel this Prophet-historian pictures 
 a further calamity of disobedience. Jahveh's command was 
 that men offer animals in worship. Fruit was under ban since 
 Eve's experience. Cain was a gardener, had no animals to 
 sacrifice, and did not appreciate the seriousness of the fruit 
 episode sufficiently to provide himself. His fruit offering was a 
 disobedience, for which Jahveh rebuked him, and Cain fell into 
 a mortal jealousy of his brother. 
 
 The tradition of a Flood was the common property of Sem- 
 itic races. It was doubtless the lingering memory, through 
 measureless ages, of the real old geological floods of the glacier 
 period. Our Prophet-historian accounted for it on moral 
 grounds. The Flood, also, was a Divine rebuke of human 
 wickedness. 
 
 Another thing to be accounted for was the differing speech 
 of men. Every nation had its own language, and that fact 
 created no end of difficulty, required study — study is work 
 — work is evil. The Prophet-historian had an explana- 
 tion. He adapted or invented the story of Babel, with 
 the selfish ambition of the forefathers which was rebuked 
 by the " confusion of tongues." Of course, the Priest-historian 
 says nothing about that, for before he wrote the Jews had been 
 in the land of Shinar, (Babylonia), and learned that the Tower 
 was without foundation. 
 
 The picturesque stories of the patriarchs, those detailed 
 " lives " of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, stories that are brim- 
 ming with energy and sparkling with "lessons," many of them 
 
ISRAEL AND JUDAH. 61 
 
 beautiful, some of them pathetic, all of them written with a 
 devout purpose, in which events must be clearly subservient to 
 ideas, are from the pen of the Prophet-historian. The account 
 (Gen. xviii) of the appearance of the Lord at Abraham's tent, 
 the promise concerning Sarah's child, and the supper with the 
 celestial guests, is what may properly be called graphic writing. 
 The same account by the Priest-historian, (Gen. xvii : 15 to 19,) 
 is not graphic, it is a prosaic and solemn statement. It is thus 
 the two historians always differ. The detailed and exciting 
 narrative of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, (Gen. 
 xviii : 16 — xix : 28,) is from the Prophet-historian. The Priest- 
 historian contents himself with a bare reference, (Gen. xix 129.) 
 It is the Prophet-historian who gives the beautiful love-story 
 of the bringing of Isaac's wife, (ch. xxiv) ; the prophetic births 
 of Jacob and Esau, (ch. xxv) ; the narrative of Jacob's subter- 
 fuge, (ch. xxvii) ; the account of Jacob's happy finding of 
 Rachel, (ch. xxix) ; and the lively recital of Jacob's experience 
 with Laban, (ch. xxx). All through these stories the Deity is 
 represented, very crudely, as an angel who comes down from 
 his upper abode, and walks on the earth, and argues with 
 men ; who sits at the tent door in the cool of the evening, and 
 eats, and is pleased with the smell of burning sacrifices ; who 
 needs to make inquiry to find out if reports are true, and is 
 turned from a sworn resolve by the influence of a man. It 
 reads like Homer's account of the actions and feelings of a 
 Greek god. It was written in the age of Homer. 
 
 This Prophet-historian was a writer with free swinging rhet- 
 oric, with keen wit and full emotion, in whose mind every old 
 scrap of tradition rounded out into a well-balanced and deeply 
 interesting story, with miracles galore, with tragic situations 
 and breathless crises and grand denuements to satisfy the most 
 exacting. The stories are not hurried, but the action is brisk 
 enough for a drama, and the reader is carried delightfully from 
 scene to scene without the introduction of a needless word. 
 Every paragraph is brilliant with changing effects and great 
 sayings. 
 
 The story of Joseph and Moses, of how the Hebrews got 
 into Egypt and how they got away, is one of the most delight- 
 ful and unhistoric, one of the most ingenious because so ap- 
 
62 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 parently ingenuous, that was ever written. There is nothing in 
 Homer to surpass it for noble imagery and poetic completeness, 
 and Homer cannot be compared with it for naturalness of pre- 
 sentation and elevation of sentiment. It has the charm of a 
 pastoral woven about the rugged grandeur of an epic. Facts of 
 history and facts of science are equally unknown to this en- 
 trancing story-teller. His facile pen is never embarrassed by 
 physical realities or any awkward demand of logic. He was 
 illustrating the prophetic idea of morals and providence. The 
 clay of tradition, so plastic under his happy touch, was moulded 
 into shapes of beauty which can never lose their charm nor fail 
 of arousing the world's reverent sympathy. 
 
 From the crossing of the Red Sea to the conquest of Canaan, 
 as in all the earlier parts of the Hexateuch, the stories largely 
 belong to the Prophet-historian ; the ritualism to the Priest- 
 historian, three centuries later. The Song of Victory, (Ex. xv : 
 1-19,) may have been copied from the Book of Jasher. The 
 healing of bitter waters (ch. xv: 22-26) ; the complaint against 
 Moses (xvi : 1-3) ; the institutions of the Sabbath, which tra- 
 dition pushed back to this fictitious date (xvi : 27-30) ; the 
 battle with Amalek (xvii : 8-16); the story of Jethro, (xviii) ; 
 the story of Sinai (xix) ; the story of the Golden Calf (xxxi : 
 18 — xxxii : 35); the story of Jahveh's appearance to Moses 
 (xxxiii : 12-23) 5 are from the pen of the Prophet-historian. 
 
 The last six chapters of Exodus, all of Leviticus, with the 
 exception of the Law of Holiness (chs. xvii-xxvi), and to Num- 
 bers xiii • 17, belong to the Priest's code of the second Temple. 
 
 The story of the spies (Num. xiii: 17-33); the prayer of 
 Moses and Jahveh's reply (xiv : 11-24); the story of the Ark 
 (xiv : 40-45) ; the story of Korah and his fellow-rebels (xvi : 
 1-3; 12-15; 2 5-34); the smiting of the rock (xx : 3-5; 7-1 1) ; 
 the messengers to Edom (xx : 14-21); the fiery serpent (xxi : 
 4-9) ; the battle with the Amorites (xxi : 12.35) ; the story of 
 Balak and Balaam (xxii-xxiv) ; the preparations for conquest 
 (xxxii), comprise the eighth century historian's part of the 
 book of Numbers. 
 
 From his writing it is supposed that the author of Deuter- 
 onomy took the command (Deut. xxv: 5-7), to build a rough 
 
ISRAEL AND JUDAH. 63 
 
 stone altar and feast about it, and rejoice, while they offered 
 sacrifices to Jahveh. That was very unlike the extended ritual- 
 ism of the mythical Tabernacle, which the Priest-historian 
 erects for these primitive times. The account of Moses' ap- 
 proaching death, and his dying song, (Deut. xxxi : 16-21 ; and 
 xxxi : 30— xxxii : 43,) are also reckoned as having been taken 
 from the Prophet -historian, who contented himself with noth- 
 ing further about Moses, except the simple sublime epitaph of 
 Deut. xxxiv: 10. This dying song of Moses was probably an 
 independent production, copied by the Prophet-historian. 
 
 The book of Joshua consists of twenty-four chapters. The 
 first twelve, devoted to the Conquest, are almost entirely by 
 the Prophet-historian. The other twelve, devoted to the 
 division of the spoil and Joshua's final exhortations, are almost 
 wholly the work of the Priest-historian. 
 
 Whoever would like to make a closer study of this problem 
 of double authorship will find the exhaustive analysis, from 
 which I have taken this hasty outline, in Dr. Driver's Intro- 
 duction to the Literature of the Old Testament. He will find 
 the problem still further complicated by the theory that this 
 Prophet-history is itself a book of double authorship ; but, 
 since it is very likely that the two writings and their combina- 
 tion all date in the eighth century, they may be thus con- 
 sidered as one. These two authors of the eighth century 
 work are commonly known as Jehovist and Elohist ; but to 
 avoid so much technicality I have used the term Prophet- 
 history. 
 
 Every student, every one who even pretends to be a Bible 
 reader, should be familiar with the distinctions between this 
 eighth century work and the Priest-code (or Priest-history), 
 which was written three centuries later and braided with it. 
 
 If the reader will get two cheap copies of the Bible, so that 
 he can use both sides of the leaves, and cut out all the story 
 parts as here indicated, with the connecting paragraphs or 
 verses so clearly determined by Dr. Driver, and paste them in 
 order in a blank book, he will have substantially the Prophet- 
 history. He will be surprised to find what a complete story it 
 is, how many of the breaks and jumps and doublings and dis- 
 connections and misunderstandings of the common version it 
 
64 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 avoids. He will be surprised to find how little ritualism it 
 contains; for it will be impressed upon his mind that The 
 Tabernacle, with its endless laws and ordinances, had not yet 
 been invented. 
 
 Later History. 
 
 It hardly seems probable that the historians of that great 
 literary age (the 8th century B. C.) would pause with the con- 
 quest of Canaan ; but there is no other historic writing of that 
 age existent. We have reference, however, to other books now 
 extinct, upon which the later histories of Samuel and Kings 
 were doubtless founded. The eighth century writers seem to 
 have considered the The Wars of Jahveh and the Book of 
 Jasher sufficient for the period of the Judges and Saul and 
 David. For the age of Solomon, ist Kings, xi : 41, refers to a 
 book called the Acts of Solomon. That was very likely a his- 
 tory of the great Temple Epoch written in the eighth century. 
 The history of the northern kingdom, down almost to his own 
 time, was also (probably) written by some eighth century his- 
 torian, in the book so often mentioned both in ist and 2d 
 Kings, and which was called The Chronicles of The Kings of 
 Israel. (See ist Kings, xiv : 19; 2d Kings, xiv : 28.) The his- 
 tory of the southern kingdom, probably compiled in the eighth 
 century, quite as often mentioned, is called The Chronicles of 
 The Kings of Judah. (See ist Kings, xiv : 29 ; 2d Kings, xx : 20.) 
 
 Those portions of the Old Testament which we now possess 
 that were in existence at the year 700 B. C. are : Jacob's Bless- 
 ing ; the Covenant; the Decalogue ; Amos; Hosea ; the first 
 Isaiah ; Micah ; the Song of Solomon ; a few Psalms ; the first 
 collections of Proverbs ; The Dying Song of Moses ; the Prophet- 
 history of the Hexateuch ; and such matter from the Wars of 
 Jahveh and the book of Jasher and the Acts of Solomon and 
 the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel and the Chronicles of the 
 Kings of Judah, as has been incorporated in Judges, 1st and 
 2d Samuel, and 1st and 2d Kings. 
 
JUDAH. 68 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 JUDAH. 
 
 Growth of The Jezvish Priesthood. 
 
 The destruction of Israel was completed by the Assyrians in 
 the year 721 B. C. The last of the great ethical prophets died 
 with Isaiah about the year 700. Henceforth, during a period 
 of seventy-five years, literature stagnated. If anything was 
 written during that period, it has been lost. Perhaps much 
 was written— nothing great enough to live. Great literature 
 goes by historic epochs. When an epoch passes, nothing great 
 is written until popular thought is centered upon some new 
 problem. The old prophetic order of thought came to an end 
 with Isaiah. The great idea of the eighth century had been 
 the belief in political providence as the reward of popular mo- 
 rality — the belief that if people were moral, and for that reason 
 alone, God would give them national prosperity. With that 
 sublime, though mistaken, conviction the prophets had worked 
 great moral reforms ; but political greatness did not follow — 
 scourging and destruction followed. On the heels of their 
 splendid reforms came the utter defeat and practical annihila- 
 tion of the northern kingdom. Ten of the twelve tribes were 
 blotted out of existence. The other two tribes were made an 
 Assyrian province, paying tribute for their lives. Never had 
 the Hebrews risen to such high ethical standards ; never 
 had their moral sense, their conduct, their domestic re- 
 lations, been so commendable ; never had calamity so 
 sweeping and so fatal come upon them. Moral reform 
 had not secured the defeat of their enemies. God had 
 not come to the rescue; had not answered their nobler living 
 with military victories, but with the most dreadful losses of 
 life and territory and liberty. Appreciating the failure of the 
 prophet-theory of national progress, to whom should the 
 
66 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 people turn but to the priests ? The prophets had not been 
 careless of worship, but they had been so overwhelmingly- 
 zealous for good conduct that it seemed they were careless of 
 worship. A multitude usually sees but one thing at a time. 
 To make any matter of less importance, seems to make it of no 
 importance in the eyes of a multitude. The prophets had se- 
 verely criticised the deadness and formalism of priestly routine. 
 The multitude does not distinguish between the abuses allowed 
 by an organization and the organization itself. It seemed that 
 the prophets meant to destroy the priesthood — that the prophets 
 had no regard for any system of worship whatever. When ca- 
 lamity came under the prophet rule, the priests were ready to 
 make the most of it. Financial distress may be owing to a 
 failure of crops, but the party that is out will try to make the 
 dear people believe that the party in power was entirely re- 
 sponsible. Political calamity, at the close of two generations 
 of prophetic rule, was the priests' opportunity. The terrible 
 facts of defeat and conquest and disruption were plain enough. 
 The politician is always ready with his plausible theory of the 
 facts. The people had trusted the prophets and were now in 
 distress. They would try the priests. Perhaps God was angry 
 because the forms of worship had been neglected ? That was 
 the priests' explanation. The people were inclined to be- 
 lieve it. 
 
 King Hezekiah, not long after the fall of Israel, noting the 
 strong demand for a change of policy, anticipating the relapse 
 of popular sentiment, began the work of ecclesiastical reform. 
 He not only inveighed against idolatry, destroying the heathen 
 shrines and images, but he made a deadly crusade on the im- 
 ages of Jahveh, for the Ten Commandments were still com- 
 paratively new, and the Hebrews still made images of their 
 god. That semblance of idolatry should be rooted up. This 
 wholesale destruction of Hebrew idols in all the villages round 
 about, had the effect to reduce the power of the village priests, 
 and to enlarge the power of the Temple priesthood. Heze- 
 kiah then refitted the Temple itself ; elaborated the ceremonies ; 
 made Jerusalem more strictly and strikingly the centre of 
 worship, as Solomon had done. Like Solomon, however, he 
 recognized the existence of local sanctuaries. Hezekiah 
 
JUDAH. 67 
 
 moved carefully. He would still allow neighborhood worship 
 and recognize the neighborhood priests ; but he would pro- 
 hibit the use of images while he conferred greater importance 
 and honors on the Temple priesthood. 
 
 That was the beginning of the new order. The priesthood 
 steadily grew, and was destined to become the governing power, 
 and eventually the sole political power in the nation. For the 
 next three-quarters of a century the change gradually took 
 place. Priests, instead of prophets, were the popular leaders 
 and the king's advisers. The people were slowly converted to 
 the idea that the most important thing was worship, the safest 
 thing, the thing most likely to insure Divine favor. 
 
 About the year 625 B. C, the young and ardent King Jo- 
 siah, a thorough convert to the new order, felt himself in po- 
 sition to make the final stroke. The people still had their local 
 places of worship and their neighborhood priests. That was 
 not satisfactory to the young king. A youthful, ambitious 
 king, who believes in priests at all, wants a closely-organized 
 priesthood, which holds the consciences of the people in its 
 grasp, and whose emoluments he holds in his own grasp. 
 Josiah appreciated that political failure had been largely due to 
 a lack of organization. He saw that the only means of or- 
 ganization was the Temple priesthood. Through that he could 
 govern, and he meant to govern wisely and well, for his am- 
 bitions were all of a noble and worthy kind. 
 
 Josiah determined to utterly destroy the places of local wor- 
 ship, to do away with the village priests, to make Jerusalem the 
 only place of worship, and lift the Temple priesthood into su- 
 preme religious authority. That was a bold and dangerous under- 
 taking. The villagers would not easily give up the sacred shrines 
 about which they gathered on the Sabbath day. They would not 
 readily part with the priests, their neighbors and friends, who 
 ministered at the altar and ministered in their homes at wed- 
 ding and funeral. It was to deprive the nation of its home re- 
 ligion and establish a national service. It was to destroy 
 their weekly gatherings and shut them off from all religious 
 exercise, except as they might travel to Jerusalem and worship 
 with strangers. No king could reasonably expect that his 
 people were so devoted to him as to make that sacrifice. If he 
 
68 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 forced such a measure upon them, he could only look for open 
 rebellion. To abolish, at one fell stroke, the churches, the re- 
 ligious order, the sacred associations, the inherited customs, of 
 a nation, is more than any sane king, unless peculiarly provided 
 for the emergency, would undertake. Josiah had devised a 
 scheme by which he felt equal to this radical and highly dan- 
 gerous proceeding. 
 
 The Book of Deuteronomy. 
 
 Josiah was not alone in devising and accomplishing this revo- 
 lution. There were two others who acted with him in perfect 
 concert and perfect sympathy and perfect secresy. The high 
 priest and the chief scribe were essential to the success of one 
 of the bravest schemes by which the destinies of a nation were 
 ever determined. The high priest was the venerable and hon- 
 ored Hilkiah. Shaphan was chief scribe. Kuenen suggests 
 that a fourth person, Hilkiah's brilliant son, the so-called 
 " prophet " Jeremiah, was also in the secret. The scheme was 
 to write a code of laws, moral and ecclesiastical — a code in which 
 their pet measure was emphatically proclaimed — and then 
 spring that code upon the people in such way as to give it the 
 force of an ancient and Divine command. 
 
 The Temple was in a sad state of repair, and was heaped 
 with rubbish. Neglected corners had accumulated the refuse 
 of two generations. The new code was written. It is quite 
 possible that Jeremiah's talents were engaged with Hilkiah's 
 in that great work. They dictated : Shaphan wrote and 
 edited. They dated their work back seven centuries, attribu- 
 ting it to Moses. They chose the end of that great leader's 
 career as the time. They made him utter this book as a dying 
 exhortation to his people. All the accessories were duly and 
 skillfully arranged. It was a stroke of genius. When com- 
 pleted, the book was carefully hidden among the dust and 
 mould and rubbish of the most neglected corner in the 
 Temple. When the time was ripe for action, Hilkiah "dis- 
 covered " it ; sought an occasion when the chief scribe was 
 surrounded by his friends and told him of his wonderful 
 " find." Shaphan must read it himself in order to be con- 
 
JUDAH. 69 
 
 vinced. People were not close critics then. The newness 
 of the parchment could easily be kept from them. Such 
 a sacred " find " must only be handled by those in authority. 
 When the doubtful Shaphan read it in secret, and told his fel- 
 low scribes and priests that he was convinced, they accepted 
 his testimony. Shaphan then took the writing to the king, 
 and the king acted his part well. It was so easy for the king 
 to keep the original and have a copy made for public use ! 
 There was a certain woman, Huldah, of great and pious in- 
 fluence, who was closely related to the royal household — a sort 
 of court lady and blessed Saint Catharine in one — and she was 
 made use of to win the initial assent of the multitude. All 
 the better if she were not in the secret, if she were an honest 
 convert to this miraculous providence. Huldah uttered a 
 solemn word on the matter which had immense weight with the 
 people. (See 2d Kings, xxii.) The elders and the prominent 
 men were assembled in the king's presence, and the book was 
 read, and the king played his own astonishment so nobly that 
 the pious fraud was not detected. The elders, and then the 
 people, accepted this book verily as an ancient, lost, and found, 
 document, whose original words had been spoken by Moses at 
 the direct command of God. On the popular acceptance of 
 such authority, Josiah proceeded with his ecclesiastical revo- 
 lution. 
 
 Hilkiah's book is our book of Deuteronomy. Some ad- 
 ditions have since been made, but the body of the work is the 
 same. It is one of the noblest, in many regards the greatest 
 and best, of the Old Testament collection — finely moral, 
 deeply reverential, bravely patriotic, full of political and prac- 
 tical wisdom, aspiring and inspiring. As a book of morals, it 
 pleads for justice to the weak, fairness to the enslaved, gene- 
 rosity to servants and strangers. It abrogates the old barbar- 
 ism of punishing the family of a criminal with him ; it moder- 
 ates physical penalties ; denounces usury and all manner of 
 cheating; exhorts kindness and fraternity; guards the rights 
 of property ; provides legal redress ; sanctifies the home ; pro- 
 tects woman ; inveighs against slander and sensuality, and in 
 every regard is a magnificent testimony to the moral sense and 
 good purpose of its authors. 
 
70 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 As an ecclesiastical code, it lays great stress upon the re- 
 quirement that worship shall be conducted only at one central 
 and consecrated shrine ; it crushes every form of idolatry ; de- 
 nounces images of Jahveh as themselves idolatrous ; provides 
 for annual pilgrimages to the consecrated altar; elevates the 
 ministering priests of the altar to membership in the nation's 
 court of final appeal, and makes their word and person sacred. 
 Priests are limited to the tribe of Levi ; they are to be sepa- 
 rated from the people and form a distinct class ; their living is 
 provided at public expense ; if the country priests will come 
 up to the central shrine, they shall still be recognized as priests 
 and provided for in the legal community of the priesthood — 
 otherwise they shall be held as outlaws. Thus was the priestly 
 order established on a firm and enduring basis. The nation 
 and the religion were united, and the priesthood "was become 
 an integral part of the government. 
 
 The people bowed sorrowfully but submissively to this law, 
 which they regarded as God's ancient word, long forgotten ; and 
 the work of destruction proceeded. The village altars were 
 torn down and the rebellious priests were killed. The Temple 
 was repaired, re-decorated, and the solemn service again took 
 on a new grandeur. Then a great religious jubilee was held, 
 and the new regime was gloriously established. 
 
 The shrewdest and wittiest thing in the book of Deuteronomy, 
 if not in the entire Bible ; a brilliant, captivating, knock-down 
 argument which it were difficult to parallel anywhere, is that 
 question and answer in the last two verses of chapter xviii. 
 " And if thou say in thine heart, how shall we know the word 
 which the Lord hath not spoken ? . . . . When a prophet 
 speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor 
 come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken ; 
 but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously : thou shalt 
 not be afraid of him." 
 
 The priestly authors of Deuteronomy are anxious to main- 
 tain the principle of inspiration. They are even anxious to 
 have it believed that prophets, as well as priests, are inspired. 
 The prophets were held in great honor. The very word, 
 prophet, was reverenced, notwithstanding the mistake of theory 
 
JUDAH. 71 
 
 which the great prophets had made. The names of Isaiah and 
 Micah and Amos and Hosea were honored and beloved, as 
 were the names of David and Moses. These priestly authors 
 of Deuteronomy would not array themselves against that pop- 
 ular devotion to great and reverenced names. They adopted 
 that common sentiment, paid it court, and pleased the people 
 by making Moses declare himself not only as the author of the 
 priesthood, but also as God's great first prophet. It was in 
 the character of a prophet they compelled Moses to utter this 
 noble book they had written. Moreover, young Jeremiah 
 assumed the double role of priest-prophet. Son of the high 
 priest, joint author, mayhap, of Deuteronomy, he called him- 
 self a prophet. It was probably to himself that Jeremiah 
 secretly referred when he suggested the fifteenth verse of this 
 chapter xviii. All the dignity and devotion and Divine authority 
 and popular reverence in that word prophet should be turned 
 to account in establishing the new priestly order. 
 
 The people must be made to understand, however, that the 
 great prophets had been mistaken in one essential regard. 
 The prophets had assumed, and were commonly believed, to 
 have spoken by Divine command. That principle must be 
 sacredly maintained ; for Jeremiah, as a prophet, meant to up- 
 hold this priestly code of his father's and his own construc- 
 tion. But a line of distinction must be drawn. The great 
 prophets had persistently said one thing that was a mistake — 
 their theory ot national greatness as the Divine reward of 
 simple morality. It must be shown that the great prophets did 
 not always speak by inspiration ; that they sometimes trans- 
 cended the bounds and spake their own thoughts, presump- 
 tuously. Hilkiah and Jeremiah made a rule by which the com- 
 mon people could determine for themselves the particular 
 things, in any prophetic utterance, which were not spoken by 
 the Lord. What a plain, grand, keen, sarcastic rule of judg- 
 ment they made ! " Wait, and see whether the thing comes to 
 pass : if it does, the prophet was inspired ; if it does hot, the 
 prophet spake presumptuously." Jeremiah did not appreciate 
 what a sarcasm that would come to be on some of his own 
 later predictions: notably, his prediction, twenty years after- 
 ward, of the restoration of the ten tribes. Few speakers or 
 
72 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 writers ever do appreciate that their keenest rule of judgment 
 is likely to prove a two-edged sword. 
 
 What an effectual shutting off this was of all prophesy that 
 related to a distant future ! If any prediction was laid a hun- 
 dred years in advance, with what irony would the people say : 
 " We shall wait, and see if the thing come to pass, before we 
 accept it as a word the Lord hath spoken." How extremely 
 witty the rule becomes wheh theologians explain what will 
 take place in the future world — wait : " If the thing follow not, 
 nor come to pass, it is a word which the Lord hath not spoken." 
 Of all of this Hilkiah and Jeremiah were not thinking. They 
 were thinking of history. They made a rule by which to test 
 the inspiration of the prophetic utterances of the eighth and 
 seventh centuries. It had the effect they desired. The people 
 accepted their practical test. The things uttered by Micah and 
 Isaiah concerning the national reward of morals had not come 
 to pass ; therefore, it was not a word which the Lord had 
 spoken. The prophets had spoken it presumptuously. Their 
 victory was gained and the priestly order seated on the throne 
 of popular approval. 
 
 What shall we say of this scheme for giving the new code of 
 laws a fictitious authority by ascribing it to Moses? It was a 
 sort of military strategem. Without some such manoeuvre 
 Josiah could never have worked the revolution he de- 
 sired. Popular superstition would accept and obey a law thus 
 promulgated. Had it been announced as a new law, it would 
 have been the signal for rebellion and massacre. Then, as 
 now, the ancient was sacred. People believed that in the olden 
 time God walked the earth and talked face to face with his 
 servants. It was, as Kuenen calls it, a pious fraud, but the 
 purpose in it was good. The king and the high priest did not 
 do this thing for their personal gain, but for the public welfare. 
 They saw nothing wrong in that kind of a deception. They 
 were not shocked by any suggestion of literary " forgery " as 
 we of the nineteenth century would be. That special feature 
 of the moral sense was yet undeveloped. It was the year 621, 
 exactly one hundred years after the fall of Israel, that the book 
 of Deuteronomy was made public and the priestly revolution 
 
JUDAE. 73 
 
 effected. Josiah reigned thirteen years longer, and they were 
 years of peace and prosperity — a Divine confirmation, in the 
 popular estimate, of his revolutionary work. 
 
 The Occasion of Other Books. 
 
 The Assyrians, who had destroyed Israel and restricted Judah, 
 were deeply feared and hated, looked upon as the chief ene- 
 mies of God and righteousness. In the year 607 the great bar- 
 barian hero, Cyaxares, defeated the Assyrians and demolished 
 their wonderful city of Nineveh. The book of Zephaniah, 
 written in the form of a prophesy, as if before the event, is 
 most probably a commemoration of the event. The Assyrians 
 were growing more and more bold. Had they defeated Cyax- 
 ares they would have wrought untold havoc. Let Judah be- 
 ware — God may not spare them so mercifully again ; but now 
 the hated Assyrian was laid in the dust — let Judah be thankful 
 and faithful ! The book of Nahum is a poem of exultation, 
 magnificently conceived and worded, over the fall of Nineveh. 
 It is a classic shout of joy and deliverance. 
 
 The first nine chapters of the book of Proverbs, what may be 
 properly called the Second Book of Proverbs, belongs to this 
 period. The peace that comes of wisdom, and the destruction 
 of the enemies of righteousness, are finely pointed by the 
 reign of Josiah and the fall of Nineveh. 
 
 Jeremiah. 
 
 This great book is a series of productions. Chapter i. is a 
 remnant of some early discourse concerning the Assyrians. 
 Chapters ii.-iv. are a group of exhortations against idolatry. 
 Chapters vii.-x. are another group of discourses against 
 unfaithfulness to the Temple worship. Chapters xi.-xii. 
 are a plea for the sacred recognition of the book of Deute- 
 ronomy. Chapter xvii. is a plea for the sanctity of the 
 Sabbath. Chapter xxiii. is a rebuke of the prophets who are 
 opposed to the priestly order beloved by Jeremiah. Chapters 
 xxx.-xxxiii. are a great unfilled prediction that Israel shall be 
 restored. Now that Assyria is humbled, Jeremiah expects that 
 
 10 
 
74 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 God will release the ten tribes and bring them back and unite 
 them with Judah in one loving kingdom. Jeremiah's prophe- 
 cies against Babylon and his predictions of its destruction were 
 (if not entirely composed) re-written and amended and made 
 more specific after the events took place. His predictions, in 
 general terms, of the captivity are not improbably dated before 
 the event. That had been threatened for many years. 
 
 After the defeat of the Assyrians, the Jews made common 
 cause with Egypt. Nebuchadnezzar was at war with Egypt, 
 and his victory over the Egyptian army in 604 left the Jews de- 
 fenceless. The Jews paid tribute to the Babylonian monarch, 
 but for some offence he appeared before Jerusalem in 597 and 
 carried off many important citizens as hostages for submissive 
 behavior. In 589 there was a revolt of the hot-heads against 
 Babylonian rule, and then it was perfectly plain to any sensible 
 man that Nebuchadnezzar might seal their doom any day. The 
 fatal day came, when that monarch had leisure for so small an 
 enterprise, in 586. The towns were demolished, Jerusalem was 
 put to the sword, the Temple destroyed, terrible vengeance was 
 wreaked on the king and his princes, the chief families were 
 carried into captivity, and the kingdom which began with Saul 
 was forever at an end. 
 
 Conflicting Theories of Providence. 
 
 Those eleven years between the first scourging by Nebuchad- 
 nezzar and the final destruction of Jerusalem — 597 to 586 — 
 were troublous times, which puzzled all thinkers and gave rise 
 to many different theories of providence. Jeremiah looked 
 forward to still deeper calamities, as the punishment for idol- 
 atry. Habakkuk, on the other hand, whose book was written 
 about the year 590, believes that the nation has been punished 
 sufficiently, and that Jahveh will now assist them to destroy 
 all their enemies — even Nebuchadnezzar, should he again 
 come against them. Thus did the prophets differ; and the 
 people doubtless said : " Let us wait, and see which of these 
 things will come to pass." 
 
 The prophetic idea of the eighth century had been that God 
 would give national success in return for moral conduct. The 
 
JUDAH. 75 
 
 priestly idea of the seventh century had been that God would 
 give national prosperity in return for the faithfulness of Temple 
 worship. The preaching of the prophets and the moral reforms 
 were followed by the destruction of Israel. The work of the 
 priests and the ecclesiastical reforms were now to be followed 
 by the destruction of Judah. Both theories of providence, or of 
 securing providential favor, had failed. The old question came 
 up afresh : " Why does God allow, or send, this terrible suf- 
 fering ? On what principle does God punish the nation ?" 
 
 During these last years of the kingdom when utter calamity 
 threatened, and the fate of Judah seemed as dreadful as the 
 fate of Israel, a wonderful book was written. 
 
 Some great genius among them reasoned thus : " If punish- 
 ment is not averted for the sake of morality, nor for the sake 
 of faithful worship, then God must have an unrevealed reason 
 for allowing men to suffer." A new theory of providence must 
 be devised. The genius thought he had an illumination. Suf- 
 fering was not, or might not be, of the nature of punishment. 
 Suffering and punishment had always been thought of as one. 
 Our genius made a distinction. There might be some other 
 purpose than punishment in suffering. There might even be a 
 kind purpose in it. Suffering might be God's way of testing 
 and developing the virtues of men and nations. This delight- 
 ful hint grew into a positive conviction and took shape in a 
 masterpiece of literature. 
 
 Let us bring the prophet's theory of rewards and punish- 
 ments clearly to mind. They were sadly mistaken, but it was 
 a mistake of the head not of the heart. Their theory was all 
 wrong, but they were not to blame. Nothing but science could 
 reveal the truth of this matter, and science was unborn. Be- 
 fore the day of science it was impossible that men should 
 avoid mistakes, of any and every kind, on the question of 
 providence. The prophets believed that God rewarded and 
 punished the private virtues and vices of people with material 
 and political blessing or cursing. If men were pure and truth- 
 ful and generous they should have abundant crops and splendid 
 markets, with national peace and prosperity. If men were im- 
 pure and selfish and cruel their crops would be blasted with 
 frost and mildew, their flocks would be destroyed with disease, 
 
76 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 the enemy would come upon them with disastrous war. They 
 believed that God wielded the laws of nature arbitrarily, con- 
 stantly changing the weather, introducing or averting disease, 
 stirring up nations to plunder and bloodshed or thwarting their 
 wicked schemes, that in these physical ways he might reward 
 or punish the Israelites. 
 
 To people who have even a primary understanding of sci- 
 ence, all that is very absurd, but that was the prophet's con- 
 ception of providence. Everywhere and constantly the proph- 
 ets appealed to these physical rewards for morality and these 
 material calamities for vice. Sometimes, of course, the proof 
 of their doctrine was not very clear. It often happened that 
 when people had been especially good the crops were bad. It 
 often happened that disease and desolation did not follow a 
 period of moral debasement. The best men in the neighbor- 
 hood were sometimes the greatest sufferers. The wickedest 
 men were sometimes the most prosperous. The author of one 
 of the psalms frankly confesses that he almost lost faith in 
 God when he saw the prosperity of the wicked. Such things 
 were hard to explain, but the prophets held on to their theory. 
 
 Then the priestly theory came in — that God rewarded faith- 
 ful worship and punished idolatry. All calamities were re- 
 ferred to idolatry, or unfaithfuless to the established worship. 
 For a century that theory had been growing. For twenty 
 or thirty years it had been eloquently and constantly pleaded 
 by Jeremiah, side by side with the prophetic theory. At last 
 the old-time Shakespeare arose and put forth an entirely new 
 theory of providence. 
 
 The Book of Job. 
 
 It seems most probable that this immortal drama was 
 written in the impending doom, when Nebuchadnezzar was 
 likely to sweep their nation out of existence, any day. It ap- 
 plies to the national, and equally to individual, fortunes. How 
 we should rejoice to know the name of its author ; not because 
 his theory is half true, but because he was a man of lit- 
 erary genius, because he was earnest about it and so loyal to 
 
JUDAH. 77 
 
 his own conviction. Also, because he introduced a new and 
 consolatory element of thought, lifted the common doctrine of 
 providence to a higher level, brought it one long step on the 
 way toward reason. 
 
 You know the story. A good man suffers calamity. Be- 
 cause he suffers calamity his friends conclude he is a bad man. 
 He protests his innocence and challenges them to examine his 
 conduct. When they find nothing wrong in his actions they 
 declare he must have sinned sectetly. When he protests the 
 purity of his soul before God, then they conclude he must have 
 sinned unconsciously. Of course he must be a sinner or these 
 calamities would not have come upon him. Day after day of 
 explanation, argument, appeal, exhortation, but neither side 
 will budge. The friends hold to their theory, which the 
 prophets of two centuries have been teaching. Job protests 
 his absolute innocence. At last our author makes an explana- 
 tion. He says the general rule is that suffering is punishment 
 for sin ; but this case is an exception. A really good man suf- 
 fers. What then may we conclude ? What was this exceptional 
 suffering for? It was God's method of proving Job's faith, of 
 testing his loyalty and fortitude, that by means of suffering his 
 virtues might shine the more brightly. 
 
 That certainly was an advance on the old hard-and-fast 
 doctrine that frost and mildew are the direct results of sin, and 
 that prosperity is God's acknowledgment of virtue. That book, 
 written in the very shadow of their great national calamity, 
 gave popular hope. Perhaps God was only testing the nation's 
 endurance and faith. If they remained true all calamities 
 would pass by, great restoration and prosperity would come 
 again, as in Job's case. Of course that is not scientific and it 
 is not historic. God does not wield the forces of nature or the 
 destinies of a dozen nations arbitrarily that may punish the 
 sins or reward the virtues of the people in one particular na- 
 tion. That new idea, however, that explanation given by the 
 author of Job, worked a thorough and lasting revolution in 
 the popular thought of the Jews. During all the six hundred 
 years that follow, to the time of Christ, we find it the dominant 
 idea in the Jewish conception of providence. Suffering hence- 
 forth had a new meaning to the Jew. It was not wrath half so 
 
78 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 much as it was love. God was testing their faith, purifying their 
 souls in the flame of grief ; and the suffering itself was a sort 
 of promise and pledge of greater prosperity to come. " Prov- 
 idence by suffering " soon came to be the popular belief. In 
 less than a century we find the complete revolution of ideas 
 has been worked. Instead of saying, with the old prophets, 
 that loss and misfortune and pain are the punishments of sin, 
 men began to say: "Whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth.' 
 
IN CAPTIVITY. 79 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 In Captivity. 
 
 The Heroism of the Priests. 
 
 When Judah was carried into captivity the priests were the 
 the nuclei of organization, the centres of influence, the teach- 
 ers and moulders of thought. They alone could hold their en- 
 slaved brethren together and make them think and act in con- 
 cert. A few of the more prominent families were taken to 
 the city of Babylon. The masses were assigned small districts 
 of land, here and there, which they must cultivate, not only to 
 support themselves, but to help support the king's army and 
 his court. Ancient monarchs made financial use of their cap- 
 tives. In those farming districts Jews and Babylonians were 
 free to form such friendships and social relations as they 
 pleased. Kindly association was even encouraged. It was the 
 policy of conquerors to make contented and loyal citizens of 
 their captives. Out of this cordiality were two results which 
 greatly disturbed the priests, and seriously threatened the fu- 
 ture existence of Judaism — intermarriage with Babylonians, 
 and desertion to Babylonian religion. The Jews had full privi- 
 lege of their own religion ; but that generous toleration per- 
 haps inclined them a little more kindly toward the religion of 
 their conquerors. Babylonia was an older, richer, more artistic 
 and magnificent country, by far, than their own Canaanite 
 hills ; and this outward prosperity and greatness also capti- 
 vated the sympathies of the less patriotic captives. The priests 
 had their hands full of work in holding their people aloof from 
 heathendom. The privilege of their own worship, however, 
 was the priests' opportunity. Almost all heathen conquerors 
 allowed captives that privilege. Christian nations set the ex- 
 ample of denying it, and of cruelly persecuting all who would 
 not conform to the religion of the conqueror. In whatever 
 concerned the religion of the conquered, Christian nations have 
 been peculiarly barbarous, while heathen nations were nobly 
 
80 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 generous. The worst of the Roman tyrants did not persecute 
 Christians or Christianity per se, they persecuted individual 
 Christians, and then tried to stamp out the Christian religion, 
 only because Christians were disobedient to the civil law. 
 Rome had an established religion, which was a part of its civil 
 procedure, to which it demanded outward and formal obedi- 
 ence. That obedience was made as formal and as easy on the 
 Christian conscience as the most generous interpretation of 
 the law could make it ; but Christians regarded the lightest 
 semblance of recognition as idolatry. The refusal to utter the 
 name of a Roman god in making oath sowed the seeds of dis- 
 loyalty and rebellion ; and it was for that un-Roman and re- 
 bellious influence, not for their Christian devotion, that they 
 were persecuted. Jews in the city of Rome, primitive He- 
 brews in Egypt, Jews in Babylonia, were allowed all religious 
 freedom that any stretch of the civil law could grant them. 
 Christian nations and Christian rulers began the systematic 
 search for and remediless torture of personal and private non- 
 conformity—a search and a torture that reached to the secret 
 thoughts and feelings of individuals. 
 
 The Jews were carefully nurtured in their own faith, in the 
 land of exile, by the priests who moved to and fro amongst 
 them. It shows the power of priestly organization and the 
 zeal of priestly devotion that the vast majority of Jews were 
 kept true to their faith, in that land from which there was no 
 reasonable hope of escape; that land in which, to all appear- 
 ance, they and their descendants must forever remain as cap- 
 tives — until they chose to remain as converted and loyal citi- 
 zens. Never were a set of priests busier, more determined, 
 more enthusiastic, than the Jewish priests in exile. Nowhere 
 else in human history does the name and the work of the priest 
 shine forth more honorably. The patriot in exile is always a 
 grand sort of man ; doubly grand when he can see no way out 
 of exile ; when he holds grimly to his principles and waits and 
 faintly hopes. 
 
 If the question is asked, why the Ten Tribes were lost, ab- 
 sorbed by the Assyrians, made over into citizens of the con- 
 quering nation, this is the reply : There were no priests 
 among them of sufficient ability and influence and purpose to 
 
IN CAPTIVITY. 81 
 
 hold them separate and coherent from their conquerors. They 
 did not retain any tribal or national or religious organization. 
 They did not keep their separateness from the heathen. They 
 lost the sense of patriotism, lost the love of their ancestral 
 faith, lost their Hebrew peculiarities of belief and practice, 
 mingled with Assyrians, deserted each other, and by inter- 
 marriages became part and parcel of Assyria, just as the chil- 
 dren of Germans cease to be a German colony, forget their 
 language even, and become Americans, in the forests of Michi- 
 gan or on the prairie farms of Illinois. The ten " lost tribes," 
 as if they wandered somewhere, maintaining their Israelite 
 identity, is one of the amusing fictions of history. They did 
 not wander; they mixed blood with the Assyrians and were 
 absorbed. The northern kingdom was carried away before the 
 priesthood came into power, and the prophets had no organ- 
 izing and cohering ability. Had the priesthood been as deeply 
 intrenched in Israel at 721 B.C. as it was in Judah at 586 B.C. 
 the Ten Tribes would have been kept separate and apart from 
 their conquerors, as the two tribes were in Babylonia, and would 
 have returned to Canaan, at some juncture of national events, 
 as the Jews did. Had the prophets maintained ascendency until 
 the year 586, the priesthood still as weak and uninfluential 
 then as in 721, the Babylonian captivity would have been final ; 
 the Jews would have been absorbed ; would have become citi- 
 zens of the heathen nation, embracing the heathen religion ; 
 never would have returned to Palestine ; the Hebrew name 
 would have ceased from the earth ; a great part of the Bible 
 would never have been written ; what was written would have 
 been lost and forgotten ; Jesus would never have been born, 
 Christianity would not have existed, and the history of the 
 world would have been very different. When Josiah and Hil- 
 kiah and Shaphan and Jeremiah worked their ecclesiastical re- 
 form, and established their book of Deuteronomy as a book of 
 Moses, God-inspired, they had no dream of the wonderful re- 
 sults which waited their action. Looking back upon the ab- 
 sorption of the ten tribes, the priests determined that Judah 
 should not repeat the experience, but should maintain its re- 
 ligious identity and its race characteristics in exile, should be 
 kept united and distinct, on the hope that somehow deliverance 
 
82 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 might come. Whether or not they felt much of it in their own 
 hearts, they diligently inculcated belief in deliverance, as the 
 greatest element of its possibility. That belief would keep 
 the people in readiness, if any chance of escape should ever be 
 presented. Wearily on from year to year, and from decade to 
 decade, those faithful priests inculcated the Hebrew religion, 
 denounced heathenism, tried to prevent intermarriage, bound 
 the hearts of their people with memories of the fatherland, 
 nurtured the feeble flames of hope. Theirs was a most diffi- 
 cult and delicate task. They must preserve friendly relations 
 with their Babylonian neighbors or they might bring on per- 
 secution, but they must, if possible, prevent intimate friend- 
 ship ; they must oblige their people to feel as strangers in a 
 strange land, submissive but not contented. 
 
 Ceremonial Exclusiveness. 
 
 The plan which they adopted for this most difficult work 
 may be characterized as the device of bigoted humility. The 
 Jews must live on good terms with their heathen neighbors, 
 but must be effectually separated from all vital sympathy with 
 them. This could be done only by making the Jews them- 
 selves a peculiar people, by obliging them to submit to certain 
 odd and estranging ceremonies, by impressing them with the 
 sacred belief that these oddities were divine, were the secret 
 seal upon them as Heaven's favorites. They must be made to 
 humiliate themselves and then to take the bigot's pride in their 
 humiliation. They must bow to rigorous forms, and must 
 love those forms as Jahveh's pledge of acceptance. They 
 must be made sectarian, fanatical, exclusive. He is not much 
 of a philosopher who fails to understand that personal humil- 
 iation, when connected with religious devotion, is an exhaust- 
 less source of bigotry. Never were such bigots, such examples 
 of vanity, on earth, as the monks, nuns, hermits, priests, of the 
 middle ages, who put all manner of humiliation and suffering 
 upon themselves with the belief that their self-torture was 
 especially pleasing to God. The Catholic Church has been 
 eminently wise, (with that kind of wisdom,) in devising pecu- 
 liar forms by which to foster at once the devotion and the 
 
IN CAPTIVITY. 8 3 
 
 bigotry of ignorance. The Salvation Army has made a power 
 of petty peculiarities. The name, the dress, the drill, the 
 sanctified slang, the tambourine, the splashing through muddy 
 streets, the falling down to prayer in a railway coach at the 
 appointed hour, the red jackets, the flaming letters of their 
 profession — all these take them apart, commit them, advertise 
 them, make the world look upon them as odd — ignorance is 
 always ready to credit oddity with sanctity — willing to feel that 
 its own oddity is sacred. The more of a sacrifice it is to adopt 
 these peculiarities, the more strongly the devotees are bound 
 by them, and the more bigoted they become in parading them. 
 
 The Law of Holiness. 
 
 Chapters xvii.-xxvi. of Leviticus constitute what is known as 
 the Law of Holiness, which was written by the priests in exile. 
 Like Deuteronomy, it was ascribed to Moses. All laws were 
 ascribed to Moses, just as all proverbs to Solomon, and all 
 psalms, (except those of very late date,) to David. The Law of 
 Holiness was written as if a code for the wandering Hebrews 
 of the wilderness when they should enter Canaan, but of course 
 it applied to the present situation in Babylonian exile, just as 
 Deuteronomy applied to the ecclesiastical necessities of Josiah's 
 reform. Its laws of morality were commands to abstain from 
 those flagrant vices practiced by the Babylonians. Its repeated 
 threatenings against the worship of heathen gods, especially 
 Molech, were vividly practical. Its stern requirements of # Sab- 
 bath observation met the religious needs of the exile in a 
 masterly way. Its hyper-cautious regulations for the sanctity 
 of priests gave those leaders a deeper hold on the common 
 regard. Its demand that no sacrifice should be made, no wor- 
 ship conducted, except by priests, re-enforced the -provisions of 
 Deuteronomy. Its emphatic prohibition of the use of blood — 
 stipulating that the blood of any creature slain for food should 
 be poured on the ground and covered with dust — was, at least, 
 a striking peculiarity. Its form of purification — to wash one's 
 clothes and bathe one's body and remain alone until evening, 
 when any ceremonial law had been broken — was another pecu- 
 liarity. Its requirements that Jews should not tattoo or mark 
 
84 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 their flesh, should not shave any part of their heads, nor trim off 
 the corners of their beards, nor wear any garments of mixed 
 wool and linen, were direct strokes at the fashions and fancies of 
 Babylonia, Its provisions for a Sabbatic year (the 7th) and 
 a year of Jubilee (the 50th), were pictures of the happy time 
 when they should return to Canaan. The final chapter (the 
 xxvi.) was a promise of great victory and prosperity if they would 
 be faithful. To keep all the rules and ordinances of this 
 Law of Holiness, with " the affliction of their souls " — fasting 
 and public mourning and penances — while they also dealt justly 
 and generously by " the strangers," would make them a peculiar 
 people, oddly dressed and barbered, with odd ceremonies ; so 
 that while the Babylonians respected them, they would remain 
 socially distinct. The faithful would become proud of their 
 oddities as the requirements and pledges of their god. This 
 humility and separateness and bigotry would preserve their 
 unity of race. 
 
 Zechariah XII. — XIV. 
 
 must have been written very soon after the Law of Holiness, 
 with which it is connected by the final verses. Of course it is 
 put back a little, as though it were a prediction of the captivity 
 as well as the return ; but that was the common style of writing 
 and is to be expected on all occasions. All prophets assumed 
 to speak for God, and it was more impressive to speak forward 
 toward an event than to relate accomplished facts. In many 
 cases* there was perhaps no intention to deceive, or give a 
 wrong impression as to the date of authorship. The prophetic 
 view of coming events was adopted as the more commanding 
 style. 
 
 Ezekiel 
 was a priest, taken captive as one of the hostages in 597. After 
 five years, he tells us, he began to preach, and at the end of 
 another twenty years, in 572, began to write. The first twenty- 
 four chapters of his book refer to the destruction of Jerusalem 
 — as if written before the event, though at least fourteen years 
 after it. Chapters xxv. — xxxii. are launched against the ene- 
 

 IN CAPTIVITY. 88 
 
 mies of Judah, and consist of great and startling threats of 
 vengeance. Ezekiel's threats are always startling, even if the 
 greatness sometimes takes on the character of pomposity. He 
 had the native genius, but not the training, for a poet. His 
 figures are overdone and his ideas extravagant ; but his 
 heart was right. He was a patriot priest whose fire must have 
 done more than we can easily understand in keeping the hopes 
 of the exiles aflame. Chapters xxxiii.-xlviii. are glowing 
 dreams of the restoration ; dreams as wild as they are glowing. 
 Nothing that even faintly resembles the facts does he foresee. 
 His vision is an awful conflagration of war in which the Jews 
 will be miraculousl)* strengthened to meet and vanquish the 
 combined nations of Asia. He sees the enemy destroyed in 
 such immense numbers that it will take seven months to bury 
 the dead, and the conquerors will need no other firewood for 
 seven years than the measureless cords of spear shafts and 
 arrows and bows they may gather from the battlefield. That 
 is the kind of prophecy we have before the event : prophecy 
 that is written after the event always tallies better with the 
 facts. This Munchausen battle is very different from the quiet 
 marching home of the unarmed exiles under heathen escort. 
 
 Ezekiel differs from all who went before him in his theory of 
 providence. Prophets had promised God's help in answer to 
 morality. Priests had pledged the divine favor in response to 
 faithful worship. Habakkuk and Jeremiah differed greatly as 
 to amount of scourging due the sins of God's people. Job 
 teaches that punishment is sometimes the testing of faith and 
 a means of establishing the good on firmer ground. Ezekiel 
 cuts loose from all these theories and gives a new theory. God 
 will restore the Jews to Canaan, not because they repent or 
 cease idolatry or live righteously, but of his own free grace. 
 The result of that unmerited kindness, or kindness distinct 
 from and not dependent on human merit, will be the deeper re- 
 pentance and purer living of God's people. This theory fore- 
 shadows the New Testament idea that " We love him because 
 He first loved us." It is the most fatherly thought of God yet ' 
 hinted in Hebrew literature. 
 
 Ezekiel's fervid and glorious description of the new city and 
 temple which the Jews will erect after their return from cap- 
 
86 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 tivity is in keeping with the dream of their universal victory in 
 war. It is so magnificently unlike what they really did that no 
 critic will ever be tempted to deny it was a prediction. His 
 final vision of the restoration of the twelve tribes to their 
 tribal portions, which assumes that the absorbed ''ten tribes" 
 will be gathered from Assyria again, — that vision of things 
 which never did and never could take place, of course rested 
 on his prior vision of Judah's vast military operations. When 
 you really find a prediction of specific events, it puts the theory 
 of prophetic foresight to a melancholy test. 
 
 Lamentations. 
 
 This book of five chapters is simply a collection of five short 
 poems which bewail the destruction of Jerusalem and the cap- 
 tivity. Chapter i. concerns the deserted and ruined city, which 
 the poet speaks of in the third person, as a widow. Then he 
 changes the figure and makes the city bewail its own calami- 
 ties, in the first person, as a deserted lover. Chapter ii. repre- 
 sents Mt. Zion as a father and Jerusalem as his daughter, un- 
 protected, against whom the Lord himself hurled vengeance. 
 Chapter lii. refers to the exiles, who are personified as the 
 writer himself, and whom Jahveh is afflicting : " I am the man 
 that hath seen affliction by the rod of his wrath." His sorrows 
 are pathetically related. He pleads piteously for help, closing 
 the song with a prayer for cursing upon his enemies ; " Thy 
 curse upon them ! Persecute and destroy them in anger from 
 under the heavens of the Lord !" Patriotic, but not Gospel-like. 
 Chapter iv. is another wail for the sufferings of the exiles. If 
 this be taken as a portrayal of their physical condition it is 
 greatly exaggerated ; but it is no exaggeration of the feelings 
 of the faithful. Chapter v. is the people's prayer of penitence 
 and plea for mercy. 
 
 The author of these poems is unknown. It was an un- 
 founded tradition, several centuries afterwards, which attrib- 
 uted them to Jeremiah. They were probably written soon 
 after the arrival of the exiles in Babylonia. The significant 
 thing in them is the personifications in the first and third 
 songs. 
 

 IN CAPTIVITY. 87 
 
 " The Suffering Servant." 
 
 Every new literary style is a precedent. The prophets all 
 followed the early prophetic style of relating history as a divine 
 voice speaking forward into the event. The style of Lamenta- 
 tions, following some of the eighth century psalms, was taken 
 up again and made very powerful in the second Isaiah. That 
 style — personification — was also occasionally adopted by the 
 elder prophets, but only briefly, as passing figures of speech. 
 In the second Isaiah (the last twenty-seven chapters of Isaiah,) 
 the style becomes a prevailing and sustained method. The 
 Jews in exile are Jahveh's suffering \ but faithful servants. 
 They suffer for the sins of the whole nation, for all past in- 
 iquities. Following Lamentations the second Isaiah makes 
 these exiles "the man that hath seen affliction," only Isaiah 
 speaks of them in the third person instead of the first. He 
 conceives of this afflicted servant as a sacrifice, a sin offering 
 unto God, by which the crimes of all the national history are 
 to be atoned for. The prophet speaks for the people who 
 have not been carried into exile, and the exiles are this 
 "afflicted man," "smitten of God," " wounded for our trans- 
 gressions/' "bruised for our iniquities," who "hath borne our 
 griefs and carried our sorrows," by whose "stripes we are 
 healed." This man of grief (the exiles) is declared to have 
 gone as a " lamb to the slaughter." " It pleased the Lord to 
 bruise him and make his soul an offering for sin. God will see 
 the travail of his soul and be satisfied." He is both the sacri- 
 fice and the priest. " He poured out his soul unto death," and 
 " he made intercession for the transgressors." 
 
 The first Isaiah taught that all Hebrews must suffer for their 
 sins. In the light of the fact that only a portion of the peo- 
 ple — the prominent families — were carried into captivity, the 
 second Isaiah concludes that these select ones are punished 
 vicariously for the whole Hebrew race. He believes this is 
 God's final judgment upon his chosen people ; that all past 
 sins of the race will be atoned for in this terrible affliction ; 
 that God's justice, or anger, will be satisfied ; the exiles will 
 return ; Jerusalem will be re-established, and peace shall flow 
 like a river. 
 
88 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 The greatest literary outrage of history has been the Chris- 
 tian application of these words of the second Isaiah to Christ. 
 The first seven verses of ch. lxiii. do not refer to the suffering 
 servant. These declarations are put into the mouth of God 
 himself. He it is who has "trodden the winepress alone," who 
 "will trample the people in his fury," and "tread them down 
 in anger." 
 
 Psalms. 
 
 A few of the Psalms, such as xiv. (which is the same as 
 liii.) xc„ cxxxvii., were probably written toward the end 
 of the captivity ; but the larger portion of these poetical 
 effusions belong to a later age. " They compose," says Kuenen, 
 "the hymn-book of the second temple." We are strikingly 
 confronted with the laxity of ancient criticism when the 
 hymns of Ezra's time and later are ascribed to David. A mis- 
 take of six hundred years in the date of writing is not unu- 
 sual, however, in the chronology of Biblical literature. Even 
 that is not so bad, not so pitiable, as the modern determination 
 that the old mistake shall stand as a test of denominational 
 and Christian loyalty, and that the facts shall be stamped as 
 destructive criticism. 
 
 Obadiah. 
 
 This brief discourse, obscure, seems like a remnant of some 
 larger work, and was probably written during the captivity. It 
 tells of speedy deliverance, and may have been a mere letter 
 written from the leading priest of one community of exiles to 
 the leader of some other community, after the coming of Cyrus 
 gave them great hopes. 
 
 History. 
 The books of Judges, Samuel and Kings all appear to have 
 been written during the exile. Into these works were copied 
 the gist of the older works — The Wars of Jahveh, The Acts of 
 Solomon, The Chronicles of the Kings of Israel, The Chronicles 
 of the Kings of Judah. 
 
IN CAPTIVITY. 89 
 
 It may be a venture to say copied. Those books may have 
 been destroyed in the burning temple. These may have been 
 written largely from memory of them ; the lapses filled out by 
 tradition. The books of that day were bulky and heavy ox- 
 hides. It is not probable that many such were carried away 
 by the captives. 
 
 A Shout of Triumph. 
 
 Chapters xxxiv. and xxxv. of Isaiah, belong neither to the 
 first nor the second Isaiah, but were composed between the 
 taking of Babylon by Cyrus and the return of the Jews to 
 Jerusalem. They are a mighty shout of triumph for the people 
 who have waited and suffered, in whom the hope deferred has 
 made the heart sick, but who now actually see the day of 
 deliverance and are filled with joy to intoxication. 
 
 Cyrus, the Deliverer. 
 
 Help came at last, as it so often does, from an unexpected 
 quarter. When the Jews had been forty years in exile they be- 
 gan to hear of Cyrus, the young Persian rebel, who revolted 
 against and then overthrew his own king and was fast sweep- 
 ing the armies of. the north before him. He might sweep down 
 upon Babylon. There was hope in any change. Cyrus came, 
 and there was great fighting ; but the Babylonians felt secure 
 within the mighty walls of their city. Babylon was builded on 
 both banks of the Euphrates. The impregnable wall was 
 arched low across the river. Nebuchadnezzar had built an 
 artificial lake with which the volume of water in the river was 
 regulated. When the spring floods came the river overflowed 
 into the lake. When the dry season came the water flowed 
 from the lake back into the river. This great feat of engineer- 
 ing kept the river at about the same volume all the year round. 
 Cyrus defeated the army which Babylon sent out to meet him 
 and drove it back into the city. Then he surrounded the city 
 and prevented the army from coming out again. Then he 
 sent another army to the deepening and widening of Nebu- 
 chadnezzar's reservoir. When everything was ready he turned 
 
90 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 the whole river into it, and in the night his besieging army 
 rushed through the river bed into the city, took the Babylo- 
 nians by surprise and slaughtered them at will. 
 
 The change had come — what hope for the Jews ? Suppose 
 we had the historic warrant for saying that the Jewish priests 
 of those agricultural colonies led their brethren over to help 
 Cyrus — that twenty thousand Jews toiled for dear life, deepen- 
 ing and widening that lake, while Cyrus used his entire army 
 in the pretended siege — that would explain why Cyrus was 
 afterward friendly to the Jews. Have we any historic warrant 
 for that conjecture ? Professor Sayce, of Oxford, an orthodox 
 authority, thinks we have. See his article, " Babylonia," in the 
 Encyclopaedia Britannica. We do know that, from the 
 very first, Cyrus was friendly to the Jews ; and we know, on 
 general principles, that ancient conquerors were not friendly 
 to anybody without personal and substantial reasons. If not by 
 digging in the lake for him, then by fighting in his army, by 
 feeding his army and caring for his sick and wounded, by act- 
 ing as spies and informers for him, by giving him some great 
 and greatly needed assistance, I think it most reasonable that 
 they merited his gratitude. Their condition under the Baby- 
 lonians was hopeless, and it is perfectly reasonable to suppose 
 they would help anybody that could bring a change of admin- 
 istration. The world hasn't got over wanting changes of ad- 
 ministration even yet. When thousands of Union soldiers were 
 cooped up in Andersonville they would have welcomed and 
 fought for any change, and would have plotted to assist Span- 
 iards or Turks. 
 
 But here is another reason, of which many scholars make a 
 great deal. The Babylonians were idolaters, worshiped the 
 idols of many gods, and their idolatry was immoral and sensual. 
 The Jews loathed it, for it sadly corrupted their youth. Cyrus 
 was a Persian, and as a Persian he worshiped one God, as did 
 the Jews. He hated idolatry as did the Jews. The Persian 
 religion, like the Hebrew, was a devout worship of the God of 
 righteousness. Jahveh and Ormazd were different names, but 
 when a Jew and a Persian soldier talked of religion, when Cyrus 
 and a Jewish priest compared notes, they must have been 
 greatly astonished to find how closely akin were their ideas of 
 
IN CAPTIVITY. 91 
 
 the one eternal and spiritual Deity. Each must have thought 
 the other a worshiper of his own God under a different name. 
 The religious consideration very likely had weight with Cyrus 
 and disposed him kindly toward the Jews. 
 
 But there is another consideration greater still. Having 
 conquered Babylon, Cyrus wanted to push on and conquer 
 Egypt. Egypt was the eternal enemy of Persia, Assyria, 
 Babylonia and all those northeastern kingdoms. They were 
 always preparing for war with the empire of the Nile. Egypt 
 was a long way off. Between him and it lay a thousand miles 
 of wild territory, filled with savage marauders. A very small 
 quantum of military sagacity would suggest a fortified garrison 
 and base of supplies as far along on that road toward Egypt as 
 possible. Cyrus would have been a fool had he not seen and 
 embraced the opportunity which so clearly presented itself. 
 Here were captive Jews only too anxious to go home and re- 
 build Jerusalem at their own expense and give him the priv- 
 ilege of it as a military post. 
 
 Cyrus was not a fool. He made the most of that opportu- 
 nity. In less than one year from the capture of Babylon he 
 arranged to send home all the Jews who cared to go. He gave 
 back to them all the sacred vessels and ornaments that Nebu- 
 chadnezzar had taken from their temple. He helped them in 
 so many ways and flattered them so shrewdly that the Jews 
 adored him as Jahveh's own and best-beloved servant. 
 
 Any one of these three reasons — help given by Jews in the 
 conquest of Babylon, the similarity of religions, Cyrus' need of 
 a base of operations against Egypt — any one of the three is 
 sufficient to account for the return of the Jews from captivity. 
 All three together make an abundance of reasons — more than 
 are needed. They are all natural reasons. We have no excuse 
 for seeking or accepting any supernatural reason when things 
 can be accounted for naturally. That Cyrus was soon after- 
 ward killed, before an Egyptian campaign could be undertaken, 
 does not vitiate the argument. 
 
RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 The Home-Coming. 
 
 In the year 536 B.C., under a military escort supplied by Cy- 
 rus, forty or fifty thousand Jews marched home from the land 
 of exile. Kuenen gives reasons for believing that the number 
 was much smaller. Zerubbabel, a noted priest of the captivity, 
 was their leader. It was a wearing journey of many weeks 
 duration, but we can easily imagine that no hardship quelled 
 the enthusiasm of that great home-coming. Their joy must 
 be spiritual, however, for they did not come to a land flowing 
 with milk and honey. 
 
 Canaan had fared badly during those fifty years of exile. 
 Cities and properties were in ruins. The heathen tribes round 
 about had pressed into the land and gained a footing and lived 
 on equal terms with the Jews who had not been taken captive. 
 The returning exiles found a mongrel population, especially in 
 the rural districts, and they all settled near Jerusalem. Their 
 first ambition was to re-build the city and the temple of their 
 fathers. So poor and weak were they, and so troublous were 
 the times, that the second temple, though a small and modest 
 affair, was not completed until 516 — twenty years after the 
 return. 
 
 Literature of the Return. 
 
 Chapters xxiv.-xxvii. of Isaiah are a separate production, 
 written while the Jews were struggling to build their temple. 
 The picture of desolation in ch. xxiv. is in melancholy contrast 
 with the brilliant hopes of chapters xxxiv.-xxxv., written fifteen 
 or eighteen years before in Babylon. These two short books 
 may or may not be the work of the same author. If they are, 
 his feelings have greatly changed during these first years of the 
 return. Shouts of triumph have become bitter complaints, 
 and even his hopes have a savage kind of determination in 
 
THE HOME-COMING. 93 
 
 them. When the temple is completed, God will take awful 
 vengeance on the rascals roundabout who have dealt treach- 
 erously — (verses 16-23.) I n cn - xxv - tne writer gets comfort 
 out of the fact that a city, (we know not what city,) of some 
 enemy has been despoiled. Vrs. 9 voices a grim and desperate 
 trust — a patient and hard-hearted waiting for the god of ven- 
 geance. Ch. xxvi. looks to the completion of the temple as a 
 sort of resurrection. They have been as dead men, but they 
 shall live. Ch. xxvii. is a continued wail, with sturdy hope for 
 blessing " in that day " when God shall be properly worshiped 
 in "the holy mount at Jerusalem." 
 
 Chapters i.-viii. of Zechariah, written in the year 520, are 
 modeled after the turgid pattern of Ezekiel. They also have 
 Ezekiel's earnestness and fervor. After picturing the general 
 despair, (ch. i.) an angel comes to exhort the building of the 
 temple, or its hasty completion. Ch. ii. produces another 
 angel to declare that Jerusalem shall be so great and so di- 
 vinely protected that no walls will be needed. Ch. iii. has an 
 angel to exhort Joshua, the High Priest. Then Zechariah 
 adopts the style of Second Isaiah and personates the returned 
 exiles, the suffering servant, as a branch or shoot that springs 
 from the stump of a decayed tree. This " man," who is called 
 " branch," has been the occasion of endless nonsense at the 
 hands of theologians. Ch. iv. has an angel to exhort Zerub- 
 babel, who laid the foundations, and who shall complete the 
 temple. But Zechariah begins to doubt that it will ever be 
 done without miracles — "not by might nor by power, but by 
 the spirit of the Lord." Ch. v. represents a flying roll, inscribed 
 with curses, and the idea seems to be that henceforth the na- 
 tion shall not be cursed for the sins of individuals, but that 
 wicked individuals shall bear their own curse. The past sins of 
 the nation, personified as an outcast woman, are driven to 
 Babylonia. Ch. vi. contains a vision of horses and chariots of 
 judgment, and a further pledge, by an angel, that the temple 
 shall be completed. Chs. vii. and viii. appeal to the moral 
 sense, and picture the prosperity and happiness that will yet 
 come to the long-waiting remnant of God's people. 
 
 Haggai, who also wrote in the year 520, dedicates his words 
 to Governor Zerubbabel and High Priest Joshua. Though 
 
94 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 himself a Jewish priest, Zerubbabel is the eastern monarch's 
 representative. Perhaps he had little else to do than gather 
 the tribute. The High Priest was the actual ruler of the Jews. 
 Haggai pictures the poverty and hunger of his comrades in 
 striking phraseology, but promises that if they will hastily com- 
 plete the temple, these forms of wretchedness will vanish and 
 Godwill abundantly bless them. 
 
 Joel took advantage of a plague of locusts to point the 
 divine vengeance. All the losses and calamities of the time 
 are due to the fact that " the meat-offering and drink-offering" 
 are delayed. Let the temple be hastily completed and the 
 service properly established, then "The Lord will roar out of 
 Zion," the heathen will be discomfited, the earth will yield 
 bountifully, and the Jews will by happy. 
 
 The Sufferer s Pride. 
 
 The remnants of the Ten Tribes, which were not taken cap- 
 tive by the Assyrians, had lingered on in Samaria these two 
 hundred years, but they had mixed with heathen peoples until 
 the returning exiles would not recognize them as of Hebrew 
 blood. In the Puritanical eyes of the exile-Jew, these mixed 
 Israelites had ceased to be the children of Abraham, and were 
 become despised " Samaritans." These Samaritans, while 
 overwhelmed with foreign admixture, had done what the Sax- 
 ons of England did with the invading Normans — had retained 
 and even imposed upon the foreigners their own language and 
 religion. They felt that they had made Israelites of the strang- 
 ers who came amongst them and intermarried with them, and 
 they were proud of the accomplishment. The returned exiles 
 did not appreciate that accomplishment. They despised the 
 Samaritans for having mixed at all with foreigners. They de- 
 spised the Samaritans especially for not having suffered as 
 they themselves had suffered. The Samaritans were ready to 
 welcome the exiles home and assist them in building their 
 temple. They were anxious that all who had any Hebrew 
 blood in their veins should re-unite in one kingdom as in the 
 glorious days of Solomon, but the sufferers were proud of their 
 own heroic experiences and they scorned the stay-at-home 
 
THE HOME-COMING. 95 
 
 Samaritans as the battle-scarred veteran despises the stay-at- 
 home at the close of the war. Samaritan help was loftily re- 
 pelled. The exiles from Babylonia would be self-sufficient ex- 
 iles in Jerusalem, nurturing their pride even in their poverty, 
 for they believed God would yet restore their little band to su- 
 preme power. They had been the great sufferers, and they 
 would have the glory all their own. Egotism and selfishness 
 are not seldom the fruits of faithful endurance. 
 
 This unfraternal spirit of "the faithful " angered the Samari- 
 tans, who then became and forever remained the hated and 
 hating enemies of the Jews. For the next five centuries these 
 two peoples, both claiming Abraham to be their father, kept 
 alive all the bitterness and spitefulness and littleness of a family 
 quarrel. 
 
96 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 The Law. 
 
 Babylonian Jews. 
 
 Not all, not half, the exiles took advantage of Cyrus' courtesy 
 to return to Canaan. Under Persian rule Babylon was a com- 
 fortable home for Jews. Cyrus and his successors gave them 
 perfect liberty of citizenship and religion. The Persian relig- 
 ion was so nearly like their own that there was little about it to 
 offend their prejudices. Thousands of them had made money 
 and married Babylonian wives and built their houses, where chil- 
 dren were born to them. They were comfortable and happy and 
 had lost much of their sectarian zeal. Why should they go 
 back to Judea ? Judea had been so utterly desolated that to 
 live there was to live in the poverty and struggle of the frontier. 
 As word came of the sufferings and discouragements in Jeru- 
 salem, the Babylonian Jews were less and less inclined to make 
 martyrs of themselves. 
 
 Jews of wealth and culture especially liked the city of Baby- 
 lon. It was old and rich and luxurious. It required a vast 
 amount of enthusiasm to give up that splendid way of living 
 and suffer the hardships of Judea for the mere sake of the 
 temple worship. They could preserve the Israelite faith where 
 they were. Why should they go back to poverty and hard- 
 ship for the mere sake of the temple ? That is the way they 
 began to put the case. That is why, after the first rush of zeal, 
 so few of the Jews abandoned their Babylonian homes. 
 
 Jews have always had the faculty of gaining prominence in 
 Gentile capitals. Disraeli became premier of England. Roth- 
 child dictated the finances of Paris and France. Josephus 
 became the favorite of a Roman emperor. The Jews in Baby- 
 lon struggled up until we find Ezra in prime favor at the heathen 
 court, and Nehemiah is actually the king's cup-bearer. Such 
 
THE LAW. ©7 
 
 position of influence had the .descendants of the exiles obtained 
 in seventy or eighty years after the return. 
 
 Among the Jews of Babylon, those who gained highest favor 
 with the heathen rulers were the ones who maintained their 
 pure Jewish blood and faith. These select and exclusive fam- 
 ilies took vast pride in their faithfulness to race and religion. 
 Of course they were better educated, more highly cultured, 
 shrewder politicians, than their brethren at Jerusalem. Eighty 
 years of freedom in the great capital of the Euphrates had not 
 been lost upon them, but their ambition was still for Jerusalem. 
 Though they made money and enjoyed life in Babylon, they 
 ceaselessly dreamed of joining the friends in Canaan, and of 
 making their forefathers' religion the glorious thing so long 
 prophesied. If they did not go to the land of their fathers 
 and endure its privations, they did what was of infinitely greater 
 moment to the future of Judaism— they created the ritual and 
 established the ceremonies which alone could insure the very 
 existence of the religion they loved. The intellectual work is 
 always the greatest and most enduring work of any people. 
 The Jewish priests in Babylon, during those seventy-eight years 
 between the return (536) and Ezra's move to Jerusalem (458), 
 did the intellectual work which gave Judaism five more cen- 
 turies of organized life. 
 
 The Priesthood and the Mythical Tabernacle. 
 
 In Exodus and Leviticus and Numbers we read of a costly 
 and most gorgeous tabernacle, a movable temple, magnifi- 
 cently furnished and appointed for ceremonial worship. In 
 connection with that tabernacle, we read of a fully developed 
 priesthood, with a completed torah, whose laws and ordinances 
 were elaborate and minute almost beyond patience. That 
 tabernacle and that priesthood never had any existence until 
 they were created in the imagination of the exile priests. They 
 also were pious frauds, wrought out with patriotic purpose, as 
 was the book of Deuteronomy. 
 
 In using this expression — pious fraud — let me be understood 
 as putting the emphasis on the former, not on the latter word. 
 This crediting of earlier authors with their own works was 
 
 13 
 
98 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 fraudulent, but it was a fraud from which personal pride and 
 self-interest were quite eliminated. Indeed there was a remark- 
 able self-forgetfulness in this obliteration of their own honors. 
 It was a fraud for the sake of the cause they loved better than 
 self. It was " doing a little harm that great good might come 
 of it." That is always a doubtful and dangerous proceeding, 
 but the wrong of it was not then appreciated, Could the bad 
 results have been foreseen, they were enough to appal even 
 the stout hearts of Josiah and Ezra. The hatred and persecu- 
 tion, the denunciation of students and investigation, the pop- 
 ular suspicion of simple truth and historic fact, the wide fear 
 that intellectual light is destructive of religion, all which are 
 still produced by the false theories which rest on these pious 
 frauds, are enough to point the injunction that it is never wise 
 to do wrong that good may come of it. All this was future 
 and unseen to Josiah and Ezra, and we must acquit them of 
 much evil purpose. 
 
 Of course it has occurred to the most purblind reader of the 
 Bible to wonder what became of that famous tabernacle and 
 that closely organized priesthood of the Wilderness. There 
 was the movable temple, the place of God's presence, where 
 the divine glory was daily manifested, where was conducted 
 one of the most elaborate services the world ever saw, all 
 through the journeying of those fortyyears, and right up to the 
 ford of the Jordan : beyond the crossing of Jordan we never 
 again hear tell of it. There was the full-fledged priesthood, 
 with High Priest and assistants, with mitre and stole, with 
 every conceivable pomp and circumstance, in a constant blaze 
 of activity and renown, right up to the Jordan ford : beyond 
 the crossing of Jordan that priesthood is never seen nor heard 
 tell of. Before Jordan, the glorious brazen altar, the laver of 
 superb construction, the sacred vessels of fine workmanship, 
 and all the solemn formalities of preparing the sacrifice : after 
 Jordan, a rude heap of stones, with the simplest barbarian 
 manner of worship. Before Jordan, a magnificence of cere- 
 monial which would do credit to Saint Peter's : after Jordan, a 
 primitive sacrifice by any common chieftain or head of a 
 family in the forest or on the hill-top. Before Jordan, a 
 thoroughly civilized and cultured and beautiful procedure: 
 
THE LAW. V9 
 
 after Jordan, the savagery of human sacrifice. What so sud- 
 denly became of that fine religious culture, that noble and 
 loftily intellectual and heart-inspiring liturgy? Was it all 
 washed down into the Dead Sea? 
 
 Of all the miracles recorded in the Old Testament, none is 
 half so wonderful as would have been required to account for 
 this instantaneous extinction of the tabernacle and the priest- 
 hood and all Hebrew memory of them. We might as well 
 claim that in the early years of the 17th century the Indians of 
 New England had a religious ceremonial, as ornate as the 
 Catholic ceremonial of Italy, which they had forgotten and 
 lost all traces of when the Pilgrims landed a few years later. 
 Everything that pertains to the tabernacle of Moses and the 
 priesthood of Aaron is fictitious. No Hebrew or Israelite or 
 Jew ever heard of these things until he heard them from the 
 priests of the exile. 
 
 The priesthood of the Hebrews began with the building of 
 Solomon's temple. Its first great prominence came with 
 Josiah's introduction of Deuteronomy in the year 621. When 
 Josiah was struggling to lift the priesthood into power why did 
 he not refer to that ancient priesthood of Aaron ? Why did 
 he not read to the assembled nation the laws and ordinances 
 of the tabernacle? Because he had never heard tell of them. 
 When the book of Deuteronomy was put forth with the great 
 purpose of ecclesiasticising the nation, why was Aaron's name 
 omitted ? Why was no reference made in that book to the 
 tabernacle? Because Hilkiah, the High Priest, and Shaphan, 
 the Chief Scribe, knew nothing about Aaron and the taber- 
 nacle. The authors of this forged book of Deuteronomy con- 
 stantly speak of " The place which God shall choose " to be 
 worshiped in. Why do they not speak plainly of the taber- 
 nacle as the place which God had long before chosen, and 
 sanctified a thousand times over ? Because they never heard 
 tell of and did not imagine any such thing as the tabernacle. 
 In Deut. xxxi. 14-15, the King James version speaks of a taber- 
 nacle ; but it is a mistranslation, as the Revised Version shows. 
 It was simply the " tent of meeting " — the tent in which the 
 elders gathered for consultation. 
 
 When the priests of the exile wrote the Law of Holiness that 
 
lOO RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 "tent of meeting" had been given a slight semblance of ec- 
 clesiasticism. There had been a small evolution of assump- 
 tion concerning Mosaic ritualism. The name of Aaron had 
 been rescued from oblivion and made priestly. The Law of 
 Holiness yet calls it the " tent of meeting," but makes it the 
 place of sacrifice ; still there is no elaborateness of ceremonial. 
 The Law of Holiness was probably composed in the early part 
 of the exile — before the year 575 B.C. 
 
 After the return under Zerubbabel, 536; after the comple- 
 tion of the second temple, 516 ; after the Babylonian Jews came 
 into social prominence — perhaps later than 475 B.C. — the Jew- 
 ish priests of the Babylonian colony began their great work of 
 making an ecclesiastical history. Back of the conquest of 
 Canaan there was nothing except the traditions and hero stories 
 of the Prophet history, which was written three hundred years 
 before their own time. They re-wrote the full period from 
 Adam to the death of Joshua. They wrote from the priestly 
 standpoint. Their entire work was for the sake of the taber- 
 nacle. They took the proportions of Solomon's temple and scaled 
 them to the tent. They made the tent, in every measure, exactly 
 half of the temple. Josiah had wonderful success in attributing 
 Deuteronomy to Moses. The priests of the exile had been ex 
 tensively successful in attributing the Law of Holiness to Moses. 
 Proverbs had been freely and successfully attributed to Solo- 
 mon ; psalms to David ; while Job had been accepted as a real 
 historic person, and the Samson myth had come to be a genu- 
 ine hero ; what was there to hinder a more gigantic feat of 
 pious imposition than any of these ? It was a hundred and 
 twenty or thirty years now since the temple of Solomon was 
 burned. The uneducated masses could easily be induced to 
 believe that the history now being concocted had rested for 
 centuries in that ancient temple — discovered in the ruins, as 
 they believed Deuteronomy had been. There was no " destruc- 
 tive criticism," then. Credulity had full sway. 
 
 The entire purpose was to create an imaginary government 
 of the priesthood, with the tabernacle instead of the temple, 
 in that ancient and unhistoric time — a ritualism, a theocracy, 
 which would suit their own times — a form of ecclesiastical 
 organization, religious and political, in which the High Priest 
 
TEE LAW. lOl 
 
 was supreme ruler, the priesthood a complete government. 
 They must so arrange their history that no king was needed. 
 Moses was made to be a guide and an inspired prophet, him- 
 self more than half priest. Aaron was exalted as the sublime 
 type of earthly rule. God himself was made the actual ruler, 
 with Aaron for his spokesman and representative. The High 
 Priest was clothed with Divine wisdom and authority. It was 
 a great scheme, carefully wrought out. Ezra was perhaps the 
 chief author. His famous Priestcode, containing all that part 
 of the Hexateuch which, as we have already seen, does not belong 
 to the Prophet history, was completed in Babylon, about the 
 year 458 B.C. 
 
 Ezra in Jerusalem. 
 
 As soon as the Priestcode was completed, in the year 458, 
 Ezra and many others of like patriotism and fanaticism set 
 out from Babylon to reform the affairs of their brethren in 
 Judea. They brought rich presents and good wishes and in- 
 finite zeal. They found the religion of their fatherland in a sad 
 state. The temple, less than sixty years old, was neglected and 
 falling into ruin. Their brethren had suffered in poverty, wait- 
 ing Jahveh's blessing, until their faith was exhausted, and they 
 had gone to work to make friends of Mammon. They had es- 
 tablished business relations with the heathen roundabout, and 
 were giving more heed to their flocks and vineyards than to 
 the offices of worship. 
 
 The sin of the Ten Tribes had become the sin of the returned 
 exiles and their descendants — intermarriage with the heathen. 
 This intermarriage more than everything else was breaking down 
 the sectarianism, the social and religious peculiarity, of the 
 Jews. Such families were not so exclusively under control of 
 the priests as other families were. Students of sociology have 
 often pointed out the fact that it is the wealthier and the more 
 intelligent and cultured of different nations who intermarry. 
 They are the people who can travel and who are more attracted 
 by personal qualities, who give less heed to traditions, who do 
 not marry somebody in the neighborhood as a matter of 
 course, who are more independent of priestly regulations. In 
 
102 EESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 conformity with that general law it was the better class of 
 Jewish men and women who had foreign wives and husbands. 
 It was the houses of special prosperity and refinement through- 
 out Judea in which father or mother was heathen, and to 
 which heathen grooms and brides came for the children. Such 
 intermarriage is a good thing for the coming race. It is God's 
 great law of physical and mental and moral evolution, but it 
 is not always a good thing for the perpetuity of a distinct or- 
 der of politics or theology. It broadens the area of life and 
 blots out the lines of tradition. It make humanitarians, not 
 sectarians. It was fast merging heathen and Jew into a new 
 and better and less fanatical race. To Ezra and his fellow 
 fanatics who were honestly sectarian, and who had lofty aspi- 
 rations for a nation of the pure faith and blood, the case 
 looked desperate. Having kept their own purity of race 
 and faith in a heathen land, this unfaithfulness in the fath- 
 erland was peculiarly shocking. A marvelous energy and the 
 cruelty of despair were aroused in Ezra's heart. There is no 
 cruelty on earth like that of a religious fanatic. He felt that the 
 old-time superstition could be appealed to. How slowly super- 
 stition dies ! It slumbers ; but to what awful vengeance it can 
 be awakened ! With what multiplied power cultured supersti- 
 tion can wield ignorant superstition ! Ezra's education and 
 his honesty made his own superstition invincible. In the most 
 dramatic way he excited the masses of ignorant and poor peo- 
 ple to the pitch of madness with this single question : " Why, 
 in these eighty years since the return, have you enioyed so 
 little prosperity and suffered so much poverty and defeat? 
 Your fathers came back from Babylon with high hopes. God 
 was ready to bless them and make a mighty nation of them. 
 He did not. There is a reason why. You know well enough 
 what that reason is. Your fathers and you have toiled on in 
 misery. It is because you have allowed in your midst the hor- 
 rible sin of the Samaritans. Put away that evil from amongst 
 you ; then God will bless you. Until then He will pursue you 
 with vengeance." 
 
 What was the evil to be put away? The heathen wives and 
 husbands and children. For two or three generations those 
 domestic bonds had been forming. The guillotine of fanat- 
 
THE LAW. 103 
 
 icism was to cut right down through the family ties and sacred 
 affections of many thousand homes. Every wife or husband of 
 heathen blood should immediately leave the country. When 
 Ezra announced that decree there went up to heaven such a 
 wail of grief as Nebuchadnezzar's captivity itself had not caused. 
 But Ezra had the fanaticism of the masses up to the pitch where 
 it gave melancholy support to his decree. Thousands of 
 homes were immediately ruined, the friendship with all un- 
 Jewish people was broken, the fanatical priest came into su- 
 preme power, the Puritanical age of Judea was begun. 
 
 
 Nehemiah in Jerusalem. 
 
 Ezra's power seems to have exhausted itself with the ex- 
 pulsion of the heathen wives and husbands. He did not feel 
 equal to the task of introducing his Priestcode, his so-called 
 Law of Moses. He kept it secret and bided his time. The 
 time delayed. Fresh calamities hurried upon Jerusalem. Again 
 the temple was almost totally destroyed. The city walls were 
 broken down. Judea became the helpless prey of those hea- 
 then peoples roundabout who had been so deeply insulted by 
 the action of Ezra. Thirteen weary years dragged their slow 
 lengths along, and Ezra had pushed his Puritanism but had 
 done little else. 
 
 Over in Babylon the cup-bearer to Artaxerxes, the Jewish 
 Nehemiah, was moved by the sad stories from Jerusalem to ask 
 a great favor of his royal patron. The favor was that Artax- 
 erxes would appoint him Governor of Judea, for Judea was still 
 a Persian province. His prayer was granted, and the new 
 Governor, in the year 445, came to Jerusalem with royal au- 
 thority. Nehemiah was quite as much of a fanatic and much 
 more of a manager than Ezra. He was a very whirlwind of en- 
 thusiasm and activity. In a few months he had rebuilt the 
 walls of the city and taught the heathen some wholesome mil- 
 itary lessons. He corrected abuses, even going so far as to 
 cancel the debts of all the poor, which gained him the love of 
 the common people. He repaired, practically rebuilt, the tem- 
 ple, and established the worship quite gloriously. 
 
104 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 The great thing he did, however, was the thing Ezra had 
 been unable to do — he promulgated the Priestcode. After the 
 example of Josiah he assembled the people and had the so- 
 called Law of Moses read and explained to them ; and great 
 was their astonishment at hearing of the tabernacle and all its 
 magnificent forms of worship; and their wonder knew no 
 bounds at the recital of priestly power and honor in the olden 
 time. 
 
 Nehemiah had not been kind to the poor, however, without 
 the purpose of exacting implicit obedience. The priestly rule 
 was rigidly enforced. All the tithes and sacrifices and cere- 
 monial laws were put into strict operation. The prohibition of 
 intermarriage with heathen was binding to the letter. The 
 Sabbath became a day of awful solemnity. There was order, 
 economy, rigidity and terrible earnestnesss throughout the 
 land which this old-time Cromwell dominated. The people 
 became obedient, worshipful, strong of spirit. The sense of 
 weakness was gone. Enthusiasm came. Judea entered upon 
 an age of prosperity. 
 
 The saying is attributed to Napoleon that "Goodness or 
 badness in rulers is scarcely to be considered : national pros- 
 perity demands first of all that rulers be men of personal 
 power." Ezra and Nehemiah were men of power. They 
 were fanatics, but they were immeasurably more than that ; 
 they were statesmen, and they were men of supreme virtues, 
 though cruel and deceptive. Their cruelty was necessity and 
 their deception was policy. They stood once more in the 
 breach and stayed the national collapse. They organized and 
 drilled and inspired until the "Jews rose from utter discourage- 
 ment and negligence into a compact, energetic, keenly intelli- 
 gent and proudly sectarian people. 
 
 If the reader is confused by these alternate commendations 
 and rebukes, these commendations for wisdom and these re- 
 bukes for cruelty, these commendations for honesty of purpose 
 and these rebukes for the use of questionable methods, he will 
 perhaps find no relief except in the general course of human 
 history. He will find that nearly all great epochs are accom- 
 panied with local injustice and tainted by acts of violence. 
 
 It has been a grand thing for the world that the Hebrews 
 
THE LAW. lOS 
 
 became supreme in Canaan, but that does annul their murder 
 and robbery of the Canaanites. It has been a great thing for 
 the world that the Caesars destroyed hundreds of tribes and 
 petty kingdoms in the establishment of Rome, but that does 
 not sanctify the unnumbered ravages of the imperial army nor 
 the wholesale confiscations of property. It has been a grand 
 thing for civilization that England obtained sway in India, but 
 that does not blot out the cruelties of Warren Hastings' rule. 
 
 Those who are too bitter against the wrongs committed by 
 tyrants and the robberies of men in power, are apt to forget 
 the ignorance and barbarity with which advancing j forces are 
 met. On the other hand, those who too readily^condone the 
 harshness of progressive methods are apt to forget that] his- 
 tory might have worked itself out on other lines, that the 
 heights of civilization might have been reached sooner with 
 more humane procedures. But for certain great injustices 
 Israel or Rome or England might not have been the leading na- 
 tion, but there would have been leaders, teachers, progress, arts, 
 science, literature, religion, all that we have, and better, if 
 men had always been better and nations more just. It is an 
 unspeakable fallacy to suppose that the historic course of hu- 
 man life was the only possible course. Liberty and culture 
 and righteousness might have been wrought out as well and 
 as speedily had every great nation of the past been, blotted 
 from the earth before its day of power and every great 
 man of the past died in his infancy. Other nations, other 
 men, other forms of government and religion, other methods 
 of progress would have arisen to do the work. God's eternal 
 purpose could not be blocked by any human failure. The 
 glory of providence is that, whatever methods men adopt, the 
 Divine purpose moves on — if not by a straight path, then by 
 a zigzag or roundabout path, but forever on to its goal. If 
 men do right, the right steadily develops ; if they do wrong, 
 there is a right in things which overrules the wrong and makes 
 it a servant. Water may be confined but not compressed. As 
 the secret fountains feed the reservoir a time comes when no 
 possible barrier may withstand the cumulative force. Tyranny 
 may hedge about the thoughts and the loves and the liberties 
 and the noble aspirations of men, but man always receives a 
 
 H 
 
106 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 fresh supply from the divine fountains — the breaking of all 
 bonds and the wide rush of progress will come. A river may- 
 be turned from its direct course a hundred times, but it will 
 circle or plough through all barriers and find the sea. The 
 evils of human policy have made the stream of life a crooked 
 one. Otherwise it might have been straighter and arrived at 
 the goal of civilization more quickly. 
 
 The Pentateuch. 
 
 Very soon after Nehemiah's arrival in Jerusalem (445), the 
 Priestcode of Ezra and the Prophet history of the eighth cen- 
 tury were combined, dove-tailed, made into one, as we have 
 already seen, and substantially as we have it to-day. Deuteron- 
 omy was put into it as the fifth book, Jacob's Blessing, The Cov- 
 enant and the Law of Holiness were all fitted in, and the whole 
 great work ascribed bodily to Moses. This was the beginning 
 of that work of the temple Scribes, who proceeded to gather 
 about the law those commentaries long afterward known as 
 " the traditions of the elders." The forming of the Pentateuch 
 from these various writings was probably under the direction 
 of Ezra and Nehemiah. The first half of Joshua, written in 
 the eighth century, was also welded to the second half, written 
 in this fifth century. 
 
 Memoirs and Malachi. 
 
 The books of Ezra and Nehemiah were put into their pres- 
 ent shape more than a hundred years after the time we are 
 considering. The memoirs contained in those books, however, 
 were probably written, substantially as we have them, by the 
 men themselves. In both books, part of the writing is in the 
 first person and part in the third person. The general sub- 
 stance of those parts which are written in the first person 
 belongs to Ezra and Nehemiah. The rest, and the editing of 
 these memoirs themselves, must be set down as the work of 
 some unknown author and editor of the third century. 
 
 Malachi means messenger. This book, in the form of a 
 prediction, was probably written a few years after the coming 
 
THE LAW. 107 
 
 of Nehemiah to Jerusalem, whose brilliant work it commemo- 
 rates. Nehemiah is the "Messenger" who came "suddenly" 
 to the temple ; he is the " sun of righteousness " who arose 
 "with healing in his wings;" it was he who "turned the heart 
 of the fathers to the children and the heart of the children to 
 the fathers," by canceling the debts of the poor. 
 
 Ruth and Jonah. 
 
 1Lzx2l and Nehemiah had insisted that Jews should marry 
 none but Jews, and they had diligently taught that Jews alone 
 were God's children, that all other peoples were outside the 
 pale of Divine providence and regard. Against this exclusive 
 law of marriage and against this idea of God's exclusive regard 
 for Jews the two novels, or stories, of Ruth and Jonah were 
 respectively launched — not far from the year 400 B. C. 
 
 The plot of the book of Ruth is laid away back in the time 
 of the Judges. It is a simple, charming pastoral of how a 
 Hebrew and his wife journeyed into a heathen land, and how 
 their two sons married heathen girls, and how happy they all 
 were ; and then how the father and both sons died, and how a 
 sweet and lasting love united the widowed mother and her 
 heathen daughters-in-law, and how one of the younger women 
 clung to the mother and went back with her to the Hebrew 
 country. A sweeter story was never told. We can easily im- 
 agine how it appealed to the hearts of thousands whose parents 
 or grandparents had thus been a happy union of Jew and Gen- 
 tile. How eagerly they would read it and look back to " the 
 good old times," and thank God there was no Ezra then to 
 crush the ties of family affection and drive good people from 
 their homes because they had married those they loved. 
 
 The last part of the story, Ruth's marriage with Boaz, though 
 delightfully told, is the least pleasing part of it. The author 
 must needs end the story that way, however, for he was writing 
 with a determined purpose. He meant to give an illustrious 
 example that should be a weapon of defense against the exclu- 
 siveness of the priesthood for all time. He had a splendid 
 reason for marrying Ruth to Boaz. It was that he might make 
 a heathen woman to be the great-grandmother of King David. 
 
108 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 Nobody knew enough about that ancient history to contradict 
 him, and he had written a story so simple, so beautiful, that 
 everybody would repeat it and love it — a story that could never 
 die — a story that put heathen blood into the veins of the most 
 illustrious man of the nation's history. 
 
 The book of Jonah is not only a novel, it is one of the finest 
 bits of irony that ever was written. The author's purpose is 
 not only to deny but to ridicule the idea that God cares for 
 nobody but Jews. As Hebrew writers continually do, this 
 author goes back several centuries for his precedent. He 
 takes a prophet, of whom there was a dim tradition, of the time 
 of Jeroboam the Second, in the ninth century, and he gives to 
 that prophet the exclusive and narrow-souled principles of Ne- 
 hemiah. Jonah, just like Nehemiah, will not have it that 
 Divine providence and regard are for any but Jews. If ever a 
 man was made ridiculous, Jonah is held up to ridicule in his 
 stubborn devotion to that narrow view of providence. The 
 author takes a poet's license in representing God as playing 
 alternately upon the bigotries and fears of the unwilling mis- 
 sionary. At first the Almighty accedes to Jonah's universal 
 hatred of everybody but Jews— grants Jonah the happy priv- 
 ilege of condemning the greatest of heathen cities to destruc- 
 tion. Jonah is afraid that God's wrath will not hold out, has 
 a suspicion that he is being ridiculed, and he tries to run away. 
 By a series of miracles, which the keen-witted author meant 
 to be as ridiculous as possible, Jonah is brought back and com- 
 pelled to go and pronounce judgment on the heathen city. 
 Then God mocks him by not fulfilling the judgment. Jonah 
 goes out into the wilderness, angry and humiliated. More 
 miracles, and quite as ridiculous, are worked to show him what 
 a stupid he has been ; and then comes the great proclamation 
 that God is not a monster who would destroy children and 
 ignorant people because they were heathen. The roars of 
 laughter which greeted the publication of that story of Jonah 
 must have gone far toward shaking the foundations, in all 
 the more thoughtful minds, of Nehemiah's exclusive Jewish 
 providence ! But when the laughter had evaporated there 
 was found a strong draught of common sense and reason 
 and reverence in this cup of wisdom. God was not simply 
 
THE LAW. 109 
 
 the God of the Jews ; He was the "God of righteousness, 
 the protector of the helpless, the Father of the penitent, 
 throughout all the earth. Peter, like Jonah, was an un- 
 willing missionary to the heathen, and after Peter had been 
 treated a good deal as Jonah was, his narrow mind is opened 
 until he can see that " God is no respecter of persons, but in 
 every nation," (not he that believeth in the creed, but) " he 
 that worketh righteousness is accepted." 
 
 The Conservative Era. 
 
 The intense religion of the priestly order lasted about two 
 centuries after the coming of Ezra to Jerusalem. During the 
 early part of this period, as we have seen, the ceremonial law 
 was published and incorporated with the ancient history of the 
 Hebrews. People gradually came to believe that all the past 
 had been like the present. They thought of Moses as a modern 
 ritualist, of David as a writer of hymns for the temple, of the 
 priesthood and the formalism as belonging to all the earlier 
 ages. All that is about like the notions of children in this age 
 who should think that St. Paul traveled on the steam cars and 
 bought morning papers and preached in churches that were 
 lighted by gas or electricity. It is so easy to believe that our 
 age has always been. The next generation after Ezra regarded 
 the Priestcode, the law, the elaborate and intricate ritualism 
 of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers, as the possession of the 
 Hebrews in the Wilderness and of all succeeding times. 
 
 For almost two centuries after Ezra's reform (458 B.C.) the re- 
 ligious ideas and ceremonies of the Jews were settled and fixed, 
 habits were continuous, the masses were believers in the com- 
 mon teaching, it scarcely occurred to people that things ever 
 had been or ever could be different; Judaism was firm, ingraft, 
 changeless, like Catholicism in the Middle Ages or Scotch 
 Presbyterianism of the 17th century. There were a few noble 
 heretics, like the authors of Ruth and Jonah, in the early part 
 of this period, but their heresies were overcome, their books 
 were read with a different meaning, just as Longfellow and 
 Whittier have been read by millions who did not see the 
 
HO RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 un-Orthodox teaching of their poems. These two centuries 
 belonged to the priests. All thought and feeling was directed 
 by the priests. Priests traveled constantly throughout the 
 land teaching the ceremonial law and binding it upon the 
 hearts of the people as the word of God, given to Moses. The 
 old strain of the prophets, the pleading of morality as God's 
 great requirement, had died away. It was not righteousness, 
 not people, that God loved ; it was the temple, the sacrifice, 
 the minutest requirement of the ceremonial law. All other 
 thoughts of providence were lost in this — that God was pleased 
 with the temple service — that the exact, complete forms of 
 worship were supremely delightful to him — that for the joy He 
 took in being perfectly worshiped He would render all assist- 
 ance and bestow all blessing. It was an age in which people 
 did not think, an age in which thought was considered dan- 
 gerous, an age of faith, of reverence, of humility, of brave 
 defence, of the love of ecclesiastical duty, of bigotry, of con- 
 serving energy, of plodding sameness, of narrowing impulse, 
 of intense patriotism and sectarianism,, of exaggerated pe- 
 culiarities, of orderly and obedient conduct, of growing fanat- 
 icism, of unmeasured credulity, of slavish obedience to the 
 priesthood, of united devotion and dwindling intelligence. 
 Like all other epochs of Conservatism, it was an age that util- 
 ized the forces of the past, consumed its own energies in main- 
 taing its own social and religious order, and provided nothing 
 for the future. Conservatism is a winter in which men warm 
 and feed themselves by means of the toil and harvest of the 
 previous summer — arriving always at that breaking up of the 
 springtime in which Radicalism must launch forth to provide 
 a new harvest. 
 
 Chronicles. 
 
 Chronicles, written as late as 300 B. C, was intended to fix 
 the ecclesiastical regime, of the decadence of which there were 
 ominous signs too clearly visible to the wise. Chronicles deals 
 with the temple of Solomon, as the Priestcode dealt with the 
 tabernacle of Moses. The tabernacle was entirely fictitious, 
 but the author of Chronicles succeeded in putting a round sum 
 
THE LAW. Ill 
 
 of fiction into the first temple. Everything concerning that first 
 temple should be a glorious model, an ideal, for the devotees 
 of his own age. He cannot make his precedents too startling. 
 He exalts David into 'a very wonder of devotion, and gath- 
 ers ideal princes into his plan, and sets forth the old time 
 ceremonials with lavish disregard of history and possibility. 
 He tells us that David gave three thousand talents of gold and 
 seven, thousand talents of silver, that the "princes" gave five 
 thousand talents of gold and ten thousand talents of silver, 
 with which to complete the temple. The Bible Atlas and 
 Gazetteer, published by the American Tract Society, gives 
 the value of a gold talent as something over $24,000. Eight 
 thousand talents would be $192,000,000. A talent of silver 
 was something more than $1,000. Seventeen thousand talents 
 would be $17,000,000. A grand total, including the "ten 
 thousand drams of gold and the eighteen thousand talents 
 of brass," of more than $200,000,000. That is preparation 
 for a great house. Then we are told that when Solomon got 
 ready to build the temple, he detailed 150,000 men to do the 
 work, with 3,600 overseers. This immense army of workmen 
 toiled seven years in the construction of the temple. What a 
 gigantic house it ought to have been ! What an astonishment 
 it is to read that the wondrous structure was only 60 x 120 feet ! 
 How could 150,000 men work seven years, at an expense of 
 more than $200,000,000, in erecting a little house, 60x120 feet? 
 The Chronicler did not dare make the size of Solomon's temple 
 different from the traditional memory of it ; he could only 
 exaggerate the expense ; but he counted on infinite credulity 
 to fit his two sets of figures together. 
 
 With equal assurance, the Chronicler tells us that at the ded- 
 ication 22,000 oxen and 120,000 sheep were offered in sacrifice. 
 144,000 animals slaughtered in one week ! Something over 
 20,500 a day! Mr. Armour's greatest slaughter house in the 
 world is considered a wonder by its killing of 10,000 a day. 
 Solomon is made to more than double Armour, and all of this 
 in the little temple court which contained less than an acre of 
 space. Whatever else the Chronicler was, he was certainly a 
 poet, " of imagination all compact." The cloud of God's pres- 
 ence that filled the temple, and the king's great prayer of dedi- 
 
112 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 cation, and the throngs of drilled priests in attendance, may- 
 all be measured by these wild statements of expense and sac- 
 rifice. When history is written by a priest, in the interest of a 
 ruling priesthood, at a time when there is no critic to dissect 
 his statements, we may always expect this kind of history. 
 
 Chronicles did what it was intended to do — it fixed the idea 
 in the minds of the ignorant masses that the priesthood of the 
 second temple was but a feeble copy of the priesthood of the 
 first temple — that the order of life and religion in these 3d and 
 4th centuries rested on the glorious precedent of the 10th and 
 nth centuries. A fable universally believed has all the politi- 
 cal power of truth. This particular fable stayed the disruption 
 a little while. 
 
 Psalms. 
 
 The psalms, half of which are expressly attributed to David, 
 and many others to David's time, belong also, in the bulk, to 
 this period of Chronicle writing. They compose the service 
 book of the second temple. It is more than doubtful if a single 
 one of them can be attributed to the time of David or Solomon. 
 Their great purpose is, exactly as in Chronicles, to glorify the 
 temple worship. The law, which they constantly magnify, is 
 the Priestcode. Their spirit of devotion is^ sublime. Priestly 
 religions are always noted for a devout trust and exalted faith 
 in the personal relations of God to his church, his altar, and to 
 the true hearts of his elect worshipers. The psalms are flooded 
 and illumined with noble conceptions of the Divine presence as 
 a guiding, helping, pitying, comforting presence. Confession, 
 penitence, heroic resolve, confidence, moral courage, spiritual 
 communion, joy of the new spiritual births, exaltation of soul, 
 gratitude, reverence, awe, secret and sacred power with God, 
 all the deep and high emotions of religion are so finely expressed 
 in these ancient prayers and songs of the heart that they must 
 ferever remain as the best expressions of devout sentiment. 
 
 This true sentiment is all turned by the psalm writers into 
 priestly channels. This natural feeling is made to serve the 
 temple and the ceremonial. Even a great old nature-hymn, 
 like the first six verses of Psalm xix., is adapted, appended to, 
 and made to place God's revelation in the universe as inferior 
 
THE LAW. 113 
 
 to his revelation in the Priestcode. Psm. lxxxiv. is a declara- 
 tion of God's presence in the temple, so beautifully worded that 
 the charm of it obscures its bad theology, (as if God were no- 
 where else,) and so manifestly the loving conviction of its author 
 that we forgive all narrowness of his thought in sympathy with 
 his fine and tender emotions. Even the psalm of human brother- 
 hood, (the cxxxiii.,) must be brought under subjection to this 
 priestly regime by a reference to Aaron and the annoint- 
 ing oil, and a declaration that in Mt. Zion is the fountain of 
 divine life. Even the psalm of filial love, (the xxiii.,) is made 
 to express life's highest joy as the work of a temple priest — and 
 it is spoiled by an expression of favoritism which grates harshly 
 as if the priest's enemies were always God's enemies, whom God 
 will take pleasure in taunting with luxurious attentions to his 
 priests. The shameful venom and horrible cursing of psalm 
 cxix. carries the thought of favoritism to the most immoral ex- 
 treme, as if no crime could be a crime in one who worshiped 
 according to the temple code. 
 
 The belief in Divine favoritism always wields an extreme 
 influence. It makes a pure heart most reverent and devoted. 
 It makes a cruel nature quite diabolical. Whoever believes 
 that he belongs to God's favorite class treads the precipice of 
 fanaticism. Fanaticism may continue to be a depth of love. 
 On any occasion it may change to a gulf of hate. Face your 
 martyr about and he easily becomes a persecutor. Whoever 
 is ready to die for his peculiar belief may quickly get ready to 
 kill for it. In the unambitious, a belief in favoritism takes the 
 form of placid obedience and affectionate trust; but even with 
 them, when the theological question comes up, there is likely 
 to be a gentle and mournful kind of suspicion toward all who 
 do not accept the creed. In the ambitious, it takes the form of 
 cieed-defence or persecution. On the one hand a humble and 
 tearful selfishness ; on the other hand a robust and aggressive 
 vengeance. Even that very mild form of favoritism which 
 claims a special and peculiar inspiration for the Bible, as their 
 authority, has always characterized the Bible-defenders as an 
 assuming and vindictive race. 
 
 It thus happens that the psalms contain not only the most 
 tender and beautiful but the hardest and most repulsive senti- 
 
 15 
 
114 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 ments. This belief in favoritism accounts for both. Fenelon 
 and Torquemada are alike the natural products of Catholicism. 
 Wesley's prayers and Calvin's murder of Servetus are alike the 
 natural products of belief in God's exclusive love of Protestant- 
 ism. The most self-sacrificing missionary and most bigoted 
 heresy-hunter grow from the same stalk. Extravagant belief in 
 God's peculiar concern for us and for our creed and our Church 
 is thrice loving for our loving moods, is gall and bitterness 
 when our mood is crossed. The sense of universal providence 
 may not sharpen to a point of such enthusiasm; neither does it 
 sharpen to a dagger's point, in act or word or feeling. 
 
 Let it be repeated, however, that the spiritual mood of the 
 psalms is man's highest religious mood. We all, at times, 
 have the great uplift of a feeling of personal relation with God. 
 We need not believe in favoritism to be touched and pro- 
 foundly moved by the sense of personal relationship — unless 
 we rise to that highest and grandest of all religious thinking 
 wherein every man is the favorite of Heaven, wherein the uni- 
 versal providence is seen to be an infinite care for each. In- 
 deed, the true evolution of religion is not to detract from God's 
 care for any, but to appreciate the fullness of his concern for 
 all ; to understand that the ancient thought of favoritism was 
 but a partial vision of the universal love ; to see that the im- 
 mutable laws of the universe are the complete expression of 
 that Fatherly interest which our ancestors blindly grasped in 
 the dream of miracles. This, however, ceases to be favoritism. 
 Love for one child arouses bigotry in it and jealousy in the 
 others. The same love for all becomes the perfect tenderness 
 and sympathy, because the happy equality, of the household. 
 
GREEK IN EL UEN CE 118 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 Greek Influence. 
 
 Alexander conquered Judea and made it a Greek province in 
 the year 332 B. C. For a long time after this the Jews continued 
 their religious loyalty — the priests were supreme in the realm 
 of family and devotional life. Of course it must finally come 
 that Greek culture would detract from the simple-minded 
 Jewish belief ; it must come that Greek militarism would fill 
 Jewish hearts with an ambition too obdurate for priestly control ; 
 it must come that Greek sensuality would corrupt Jewish man- 
 ners. Once a priest-ridden people get a wider thought, and 
 begin to think of their fathers' theology as narrow, they break 
 away — and the first break is often not to something better. 
 A narrow circle of thought has its own completed sense of 
 devotion. The first effect of widened thought is often a rup- 
 ture of devotion. 
 
 This Greek influence was met by such efforts as Chronicles — 
 by a frantic appeal to manufactured history and blind credulity. 
 The priestly cry, then as always, was : " Do not think ; believe 
 and conform." The strictly orthodox, then as always, united 
 with the enemies of religion to denounce reason as irreligious, 
 to regard genius as destructive of faith, to drive worship back 
 to the den of ignorance. 
 
 The Jews were inspired by the Greeks to think, but not to 
 think reverently, not to live righteously. They were inspired 
 with ambitions, but not with devout ambitions. By the year 
 250 B. C. the devout period, the period of psalm writing and 
 temple faithfulness, was coming to a close. Jews had become 
 lovers of war, sensualists, infidel and iconoclastic. The two 
 books which represent the increased intelligence and degene- 
 rated morals and religion of that age, are : 
 
116 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 Esther and Ecclesiastes. 
 
 The book of Esther is as terribly out of place among the 
 prophets and dramas and the other novels of the Old Testament 
 as Don Juan would be among a collection of sacred poems. It 
 contains some of the worst things ever put into literature. 
 
 The only Jewish festival which was entirely dissociated from 
 religious observance — the feast of Purim — a purely social and 
 benevolent occasion — had grown up during the period of Greek 
 influence. For many centuries the religion and the politics and 
 the social life of the Hebrews had been one and invivisible ; 
 and you must appreciate how greatly the priests had lost their 
 hold on the masses when Jews could have a national festival 
 which had no religious significance. The Jewish age of unsec- 
 tarianism and unbelief had come, when liberty was carried into 
 license. The history of the Greek Olympiads, the constant 
 practice of Greek un religious festivals, had penetrated Jewish 
 feeling and begotten a love of secularism. 
 
 The Jews had not lost the habit of going back to some old 
 period of history to find the origin of every custom. When 
 Hilkiah discovered (?) the book of Deuteronomy in the corner 
 of the temple he had no conception of the imitators that would 
 follow in his path. If they could not arrange to discover a book, 
 (that would be imitating too closely), they could discover a bit 
 of history out of which to make a book. 
 
 The book of Esther was written about the year 250 B.C., to 
 account for the feast of Purim. The history out of which the 
 book is made was discovered in the writer's inner conscious- 
 ness, and discovers him to have been ill posted on Persian 
 history. Esther is represented as a Jewish woman of Xerxes' 
 harem, who became Xerxes' queen about the year 475 B. C. 
 As the reward of her lust she was able to frustrate a courtier's 
 plan for the wholesale massacre of Jews ; and she succeeded, 
 by the power of her physical charms with the sensuous mon- 
 arch, in turning the tables, not only to the extent of hanging 
 the wicked courtier, but of putting the doomed Jews in posi- 
 tion to massacre seventy or eighty thousand Persians. The 
 feast of thanksgiving which followed that bloody deed was 
 reckoned by the author as the origin of the feast of Purim. 
 
 At the time when this wonderful history is represented as 
 

 GREEK \INFL UENCE. 1 1 7 
 
 enacting, about 475 B. C, both Ezra and Nehemiah were living 
 in Babylon. Their silence concerning it is sufficient proof of 
 its falsity. Persian law did not allow the monarch to take 
 a queen except from Persian families of noble rank. It was 
 impossible for Esther to attain that distinction. The proposi- 
 tion that multitudes of Persians would quietly wait the adver- 
 tised day when an alien race should rise up and murder them 
 is absurd beyond compare. You might as well try to imagine 
 the President of the U. S. proclaiming a day on which the 
 negroes of the South should slaughter the whites — the whites 
 meekly waiting their appointed slaughter. That the feast of 
 Purim, a social and benevolent occasion, could have originated 
 in any such transaction of bloodthirstiness, even had such a 
 thing been, is contrary to all reason. To assume such an origin 
 for such a festival but shows the degradation of the author's 
 moral sense. All men of reverent spirit ought to feel glad 
 that God's name is not mentioned in the entire book — a book 
 that outrages manhood and disgraces womanhood. 
 
 The assumptions which previous authors had made for 
 Joseph and Moses in Egypt, doubtless encouraged this author 
 to feel that he could place a Jew in official position quite as 
 exalted at the Babylonian court. The real cases of exaltation — 
 Nehemiah, Josephus, Disreali — should not blind us to such 
 impossibilities as are claimed for Esther, Moses and Joseph. 
 Between these two sets of cases are all the distinctions that 
 separate history from fairy tale. 
 
 Ecclesiastes is the work of some Nihilist of the third cen- 
 tury. He represents Greek influence (philosophically speak- 
 ing,) at its worst, in its most deadly skepticism of and infidel- 
 ity to all the noblest principles of life. Proverbs is the reflec- 
 tion of an unreligious moralist. Ecclesiastes is the fault- 
 finding of a cynic. In ch. i. he declares that life is vanity and 
 labor a delusion and enthusiasm a snare. All forms of happi- 
 ness fail, wisdom is a disappointment, the purest joy is not 
 satisfying. In ch. ii. he finds that luxury is about like toil — a 
 failure ; he compares wisdom and folly, with the slight ad- 
 vantage for a wise man that he can laugh at the emptiness of 
 things. He finds riches no better than poverty; he finds 
 
118 , RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 death and annihilation to be the lot of all, with the conclusion 
 that the pandering to our physical appetites and passions is 
 the only good left us : " Eat and drink, for tomorrow we die." 
 In ch. iii. he teaches that God's purpose cannot be known; he 
 doubts if there be any providence ; injustice as often holds the 
 sway as justice ; it is absurd to look to another world for re- 
 dress ; man is but a wiser beast, with no spirit of the divine or 
 the immortal in him ; and he concludes again that the only 
 thing left us is to enjoy the physical pleasures of the passing 
 hour. In ch. iv. he sums up life as unredressed wrong, foolish 
 rivalry, painful isolation, deceptive promise and blasted hope. 
 In ch. v. he gives advice, which consists of maxims by which 
 to avoid some of the evils and vexations that throng our path- 
 way — no aim, no purpose, no hope, no usefulness is intimated. 
 Existence, in all its serious phases, is wrong — avoid as much 
 of it as possible — do not be serious about anything— enjoy your 
 animal pleasures — they will end in pain if you live long 
 enough, but you may die tomorrow and escape the fruits of 
 vice. In ch. vi. he derides ambition, aspiration, all high en- 
 deavor, and turns Calvanist of the bluest type, declaring that 
 effort is useless, since all things are predestined. In ch. vii. 
 he comes to one definite proposition, which is that woman 
 must be held responsible for a large portion of the evils 
 of life — woman is supremely bad, impure, untrustworthy. 
 That is the conclusion arrived at by every burnt-out repro- 
 bate since the world began. In ch. viii. he proves himself 
 a traitor to his race by counseling meek obedience to what- 
 soever king may hold them in subjection. Make your 
 peace with the powers that be ; patriotism is nonsense ; devo- 
 tion to any idea or principle is a fool's whim. Again we are 
 told that life is an evil and that death ends everything, and we 
 are exhorted to smile at the vanity of things and get what 
 pleasure we can in eating and drinking. In ch. ix. he scorns 
 moral conviction, declares that the virtues of the heroes are 
 not remembered, that money is greater than wisdom and duty, 
 and that death is universal oblivion. In ch. x. he gives the 
 result of cynical observations, with much contempt for com- 
 mon people and a sop of praise for aristocracy. He has found 
 out the way of the world : " Money answereth all things." 
 
GREEK INFLUENCE. 119 
 
 Be careful how you criticise kings and rich people. Strange 
 teaching is this, for Bible teaching, if any student yet assumes 
 that all the Bible is inspired of God ! 
 
 This author betters the instruction of Josiah and Ezra and 
 all the rest, who date their works backward, by himself claim- 
 ing to be King Solomon. He may have meant it as a deep 
 sarcasm on the pietistic and sensuous old ruler. His work has 
 done much to degrade the builder of the temple and the 
 harem. 
 
 The exhortations of the last two chapters — exhortations to 
 benevolence, to faithfulness in our daily duties, to a supreme 
 trust in God for the good outcome of our labor, to earnestness 
 and purity in the days of youth, to obey the commands of God 
 — are so unlike the burden of the other ten chapters : these 
 declarations, of a wise and just providence and of the return of 
 the spirit to God at death, are so different from the bald ma- 
 terialism of the other ten chapters, that we can only conclude 
 they are the additions of a later and better hand. The genius 
 of the ten chapters, their dominant refrain, is to scorn God, to 
 despise his commands, to suspect men, to slander women, to 
 hold virtue and duty in contempt, to live in the passions and 
 be satisfied with animalism. 
 
120 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 The Jewish Reformation. 
 
 Judas Maccabceus. 
 
 The last, and one of the greatest, of Old Testament books — 
 the book of Daniel— cannot be understood without a brief 
 review of the intervening history. 
 
 Alexander took possession of Palestine in the year 332 B. 
 C. After his death it passed into the hands of Ptolemy I., one 
 of Alexander's favorite generals, who received Egypt in the 
 division of kingdoms, and who was the founder of the illus- 
 trious Greek dynasty of Egyptian rulers — the Ptolemies. Egypt 
 was made thoroughly Grecian, used the Greek language, and 
 Ptolemy's court was the favorite resort of Greek philosophers. 
 It was the welcome home of all scholars, and 'thither flocked 
 many educated Jews. Thither also flocked many trading Jews 
 who were not specially educated. The Hebrew was fast be- 
 coming a dead language, especially in Egypt, for all but the 
 more scholarly Jews. Greek everywhere prevailed. For the 
 convenience of their unscholarly brethren, the scholars among 
 the Egyptian Jews translated the Hebrew books of our Bible 
 into Greek. The story of " The Septuagint" — that seventy 
 scribes shut themselves up in seventy separate rooms, each 
 translating the entire Scriptures, finding afterward that they 
 all exactly agreed in their work — is a pretty fiction. 
 
 After the death of Ptolemy IV. Palestine was secured by 
 Antiochus III., king of Syria, in the year 205 B. C. In 187 his 
 son, Seleucus IV. succeeded to the Syrian throne. The Jews 
 had become wealthy and vast treasure was laid up in the tem- 
 ple, which many of them loved far better as a safety vault than 
 as a place of worship. Its sacred character did not prevent 
 Seleucus from attempting to rob it. He failed in the burglary, 
 but succeeded to some extent by intrigue with purchasable 
 priests. 
 
THE JEWISH REFORMATION. 121 
 
 Seleucus died in 175 and was succeeded by his younger 
 brother, Antiochus IV., who carried the temple robbery to a 
 shameful extreme. The temple was finally sacked and ruined, 
 and heathen gods were set up in the sacred court. Jerusalem 
 was overrun with hostile armies ; wealthy Jews were driven 
 from their homes, which were occupied by favorites of the 
 Syrian king. Disasters continued until the better class of Jews 
 fled in multitudes to all the cities of the Mediterranean — safer, 
 happier, more prosperous anywhere else than in their native 
 land. 
 
 These outward calamities, however, were not the most 
 serious threatenings to Hebrew life. Worse than all that was 
 the religious indifference, the spiritual deadness, the loss of 
 faith, the decay of the ancient spirit of worship, the worldliness 
 of the priesthood, the silence of the prophet's voice, the almost 
 universal aping of heathen customs and manners. The Jews 
 had ceased to be a peculiar people, lost their patriotism in the 
 love of money and social recognition. They even became 
 ashamed of their peculiarities in presence of the cultured 
 Greeks ; neglected their festivals and ceremonial rites ; named 
 their children after Greek gods and heroes ; built a gymna- 
 sium ; purchased and sold the privilege of Greek citizenship. 
 The temple priests themselves were foremost in this heathen- 
 izing process. One high priest went so far as to send a 
 present for offerings on the altar of Hercules, the god whose 
 worship was most popular at the Syrian court. The priests 
 were become a nobility, with riches and political power, 
 and they betrayed what integrity there was left in Judaism to 
 the highest bidder. The altars of " strange gods " were in 
 every city and hamlet of Palestine. Wellhausen says : "All 
 that was religiously distinctive in Judaism was to be removed. 
 The Mosaic cultus was abolished, Sabbath observance and the 
 rite of circumcision prohibited, all copies of the Torah confis- 
 cated and burnt. In the desecrated and partially-destroyed 
 temple pagan ceremonies were performed, and upon the 
 great altar of burnt-offering a small altar to Zeus Olympios was 
 erected, on which the first offering was made on the 25th 
 Kislev 168. In the country towns also heathen altars were 
 erected, and the Jews compelled, on pain of death, publicly to 
 16 
 
122 RESULTS \0F HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 adore the false gods and eat swine's flesh that had been sacri- 
 ficed to idols." Such was the proclamation and such the 
 attempt of Antiochus, who sent an army through Palestine to 
 complete this heathenizing work. 
 
 There are always a few faithful souls whom no calamity and 
 no general degradation can overcome. One such, an aged 
 priest, lived with his seven sons in a little village near Jerusa- 
 lem. The Syrian general heard of this old priest's faithfulness 
 and concluded he would make an example of him. It was time 
 to root out the last seeds of Judaism. Passing through his 
 village the Syrian general ordered him to offer sacrifice on the 
 heathen altar that stood close by. The priest refused. The 
 general threatened. The white-haired old man leapt upon the 
 heathen commander and slew him, and then, with his sons, 
 fled northward into the hills. The story spread, and the little 
 spark of Jewish patriotism flamed up and soon kindled a fire 
 that swept Judea's hills as no fire of patriotism had swept 
 them since the great days of King David. 
 
 The name of that old priest was Matthias, and the name of 
 his most famous son was Judas Maccabseus, the Charles Mar- 
 tel, or the Henry of Navarre, or the Gustavus Adolphus of 
 Jewish history. Gathering a band of faithful young men, Judas 
 traversed the land destroying heathen altars by night and flee- 
 ing to the mountain fastnesses in the daytime. The governor 
 tnought these fanatical Jews would not fight on their Sabbath 
 day, and he sent a company of soldiers who tracked them into 
 the mountains and waited for the Sabbath, to butcher them 
 without resistance. The governor reckoned without his host. 
 Judas fell upon the soldiers and butchered them. Victory 
 brought recruits. Apollonius took the field with his entire 
 army. He was killed and his army cut to pieces. This greater 
 victory brought a multitude of recruits. The son of the old 
 priest organized, armed and drilled them. Governor Seron of 
 Ccelesyria came against him with a large army, which the fiery 
 young Cromwell demolished and routed. Judas entered Jeru- 
 salem, drove the heathen out, fortified the walls and began the 
 work of cleansing and repairing the temple. The great gen- 
 eral, Lysias, sent an army in three divisions to surround and 
 storm the city. Judas anticipated the plan, rushed out on this 
 
THE JEWISH BEE OB MA TTON. 123 
 
 side and now on that, repulsing the divisions one by one. 
 Lysias took the field in person, and then it might have gone 
 hard with Judas had not the veteran conqueror been suddenly 
 called away by the death of the king. How like a providence 
 that seemed ! Judas now applied himself to the task of rescu- 
 ing and re-Judaizing the towns and villages. Out and in. far 
 and near, even as far as to Lebanon and Damascus, he sallied, 
 and carried an awful victory with him wherever he went. In 
 the year 160 B. C. he met the entire Syrian army, under the 
 great Nicanor, and Nicanor was slain and his army cut to 
 pieces. The career of Maccabaeus did not pause until Judea 
 was again united and pulsing with vigorous life, until the Jew- 
 ish religion was powerful and Jerusalem was secure once more 
 as the holy city of the Jews. 
 
 The Book of Daniel. 
 
 What has the above history to do with the book of Daniel ? 
 Everything to do with it. That great and patriotic and relig- 
 ious novel was most probably written in the year 165 B. C, 
 during the Maccabaean struggles for liberty and restoration. 
 Its purpose was, by telling the most wonderful stories of how 
 God had helped his people in a former age, and by playing on 
 the popular belief in prophecy and the fulfillment of prophecy, 
 to arouse faith and hope and partiotism and courage for the 
 impending struggle. It seems that there was a belief in the 
 existence, somewhere along in the old Hebrew history, of a 
 man named Daniel, of great repute for his virtue and holiness. 
 He is mentioned by Ezekiel (Ezek. xiv : 14,) in connection with 
 Noah and Job. All these are probably as apocryphal as William 
 Tell and Prester John. This highly uncertain Daniel is located 
 in Babylon at the time of the captivity, and is made the hero 
 of such marvelous exploits as the Jews had learned, in the 
 Homerain legends, to associate with Greek heroes. For start- 
 ling experiences and miraculous rescues Daniel is quite worthy 
 to be compared with Jason or Ulysses. 
 
 Chapter I. introduces the young man, Daniel, as a sort of 
 page in the Babylonian court, a lad of Israelite blood and 
 faith, whom Jahveh favors with miraculous attention. Chapter 
 
124 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 II. tells us how the young Daniel interprets Nebuchadnezzar's 
 dream. The image, with head of gold, breast of silver, body 
 of brass, legs of iron and feet of iron and clay, represents the 
 outline of political history (as the writer understood it), from 
 Nebuchadnezzar through the Medean and Persian and Mace- 
 donian kingdoms to the Seleucidae. The stone which smites 
 the image is Maccabseus, or the providence of Jahveh through 
 the instrumentality of Maccabaeus. In chapter III. we have 
 the golden image on the plain of Dura ; Daniel's refusal to 
 worship ; his confinement in the fiery furnace ; his miraculous 
 escape; and Nebuchadnezzar's conversion to the Jewish faith. 
 In chapter IV. Daniel interprets another dream, of the mighty 
 tree that is cut down, in which the King's own fall and insanity 
 are pictured. Then follows the fulfillment of the prediction — 
 the King's seven years' of insanity and his recovery, with a new 
 pledge of loyalty to the God of the Jews. In chapter V. we 
 have the great story of King Belshazzar's feast ; of the hand- 
 writing on the wall ; of Daniel's interpretation ; with a bare 
 announcment of Belshazzar's death, In chapter VI. we have a 
 new king, Darius, by whom Daniel is exalted ; we have the decree 
 by which Daniel is unwittingly condemned ; we have the story 
 of miraculous escape from the lions, and the conversion of 
 King Darius to the Jewish religion. So much for Babylonian 
 history, in which there are several mistakes. The siege of 
 Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in 605 B. C. never took place. 
 Belshazzer was not the son of Nebuchadnezzar and was not 
 king. Darius also is an entirely fictitious king. Nebuchad- 
 nezzar was succeeded by Nabonidus, and he by Cyrus, the great 
 Persian conqueror. During the four centuries between the 
 captivity and the writing of this book of Daniel, Babylonian 
 history had been seriously forgotten. 
 
 The remainder of the book is alleged prophecy. In chapter 
 VII. we are taken back to the time of the fictitious king Bel- 
 shazzer, when Daniel has a dream of the four beasts — a lion 
 with eagle's wings (Nebuchadnezzar, strong and swift) — a 
 bear (the fictitious Darius, a devourer) — a leopard with four 
 wings and four heads (Cyrus, the intrepid, the cunning and the 
 wise) — a fourth beast with great iron teeth which destroyed 
 everything (Alexander the Great.) This beast had ten horns 
 
THE JEWISH BEFORMATION. I2S 
 
 (the various rulers which followed the breaking up of Alex- 
 ander's kingdom.) Among these came up a little horn which 
 spake proud things and prevailed against the saints. This was 
 Antiochus, under whom the temple was profaned and the Jews 
 persecuted. In chapter VIII. are more horns. The ram with 
 two| horns is the Medo Persian empire, pushing west. The 
 " notable horn " is Alexander, pushing east. The four horns 
 which follow are the four kingdoms (Antiochan, Egyptian, 
 Thracian and Macedonian,) into which the conquered nations 
 were divided. The "little horn" again is Antiochus, who 
 came into power in the year 175 B. C, and who so cruelly per- 
 secuted the Jewish religion. It was the "little horn" who 
 "took away the daily sacrifice," prohibited the temple worship 
 for the space of " 2,300 mornings and evenings." As a matter 
 of fact Antiochus destroyed the temple worship in 168, and 
 Judas restored it in 165, in the same month : z. e., the daily sac- 
 rifice was taken away but 1,095 days. If the author of Daniel 
 counted both the morning and evening sacrifice it would be 
 2,190. Our author must have reckoned from some profanation 
 of the temple two months earlier. 
 
 Chapter IX. carries us along to the first year of the fictitious 
 King Darius, when Daniel undertook to solve the prophecy of 
 Jeremiah. We are told how Daniel confessed and prayed, and 
 that God sent the angel Gabriel to explain the prophecy. Jere- 
 miah had said (Jer. xxv. 12) that the Jews should be in cap- 
 tivity seventy years. That was a mistake. The Jews were 
 only in captivity fifty years. Jeremiah ventured a grand hope 
 of restoration, giving the round number seventy. It came 
 sooner than he dared hope. The Jews had always been puz- 
 zled to figure out Jeremiah's exact seventy. The angel Gabriel 
 is made to explain to Daniel that Jeremiah did not mean sev- 
 enty years, but seventy weeks of years, i. e. seventy weeks, 
 each day of which stands for a year — four hundred and ninety 
 years. This explanation (Dan. ix. 24-27) divides the seventy 
 weeks into three periods — seven weeks, sixty-two weeks and 
 one week. The time begins with the command to restore Jeru- 
 salem. Our author possibly had the XXXIst of Jeremiah in 
 mind. He assumed that when Jerusalem was destroyed, in 
 586, God commanded the rebuilding of it. The seven weeks, 
 
126 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 49 days, which represent 49 years, coincide fairly well with the 
 
 50 years of captivity. Reckoning to the capture of Babylon by 
 Cyrus it was exactly 49 years. The next period of 62 weeks, 
 434 days, representing 434 years, the author intends shall bring 
 us down to the attacks of Antiochus on Jerusalem and the 
 assassination of the High Priest, in the year 172. As a matter 
 of fact, not 434 years, but only 364 years intervene between 
 the return from captivity (536) and the attacks of Antiochus 
 (172). Our author has simply made a miscalculation of seventy 
 years. Such ignorance of dates is not surprising, however, in 
 one who has already shown himself so ignorant of the kings 
 about whom he writes. The last period, of one week, seven 
 years, covers the time from Antiochus' attack on Jerusalem 
 (172), to the re-establishment of the temple worship by Judas 
 (165). " In the midst of that week (vrs. 27) he caused the sac- 
 rifice and the oblation to cease." It was in 168 that Antiochus 
 prohibited the sacrifice. Thus the great prediction of Jere- 
 miah is made to refer, not to the captivity alone, but to the 
 whole period between Jehoiakim and Judas. It would seem 
 that he considered the whole period from the destruction of 
 Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar down to his own day as a time 
 of unfaithfulness. At least two hundred years of that period, 
 from the coming of Ezra to the middle of the third century, 
 was the golden age of Jewish religion, the time of transcend- 
 ent devotion and unswerving fidelity. Can it be that the 
 author of Daniel was ignorant of that? Perhaps he had a 
 different thought in mind : perhaps he looked for a restoration 
 of the'kingdom with a great Jewish king on David's throne 
 once more. Writing, in the midst of the Maccabsean war, 
 soon after the restoration of the temple worship, this may 
 have been his purpose— to inspire the people to make Judas 
 their king. 
 
 Chapter X. is a redoubled appeal to credulity, and it pre- 
 pares the superstitious mind of his age again for a wonderful 
 revelation. The intervention of archangels is nobly wrought. 
 Chapter XL refers to the four kings of Persia (vrs. 2), to Alex- 
 ander the Great (vrs. 3), to the breaking up of Alexander's 
 empire (vrs. 4), and to the struggles (vrs. 5-20) of the kings of 
 Antioch with the kings of Egypt ; and then to the history of 
 
THE JEWISH REFORMATION. 127 
 
 Antiochus (vrs. 21-45), how he battled with Egypt and encom- 
 passed the destruction of Jerusalem. The last verse refers to 
 the death of Antiochus, year 165. Chapter XII. dreams a glo- 
 rious time to come. Whether the writer means a literal resur- 
 rection of the dead or refers to a new life of resurrected relig- 
 ion, it were difficult to say. When he wrote the war was still 
 raging. His heated imagination may have pictured wonders 
 unspeakable. The victories of Maccabaeus were to usher in a 
 new order. He was ready to believe things as strange as he 
 had related. 
 
 You may call the book of Daniel a deception, if you like ; I 
 do not find it in my heart to condemn such a deception at such 
 a time. A nation's life trembled in the balance— all Judaism 
 must be aroused to a desperate faith and courage. The moral 
 standards of that age were not as high as they are now. I can 
 imagine no other way in which the man of literature could do 
 so great a work for his country and his religion. It was not 
 an ideal thing in its moral bearings, but it is nobly excusable. 
 
 Is was to the armies of Judas what the stirring pamphlets of 
 Thomas Paine were to the labors of Washington in the dark 
 Revolutionary days, or what Uncle Tom's Cabin was to the 
 enthusiasm for human liberty during the Rebellion. The 
 overthrow of Belshazzar and the protection of Daniel in the 
 fiery furnace and in the lion's den — how like they were to the 
 providence which disposed of Lysias and Antiochus and which 
 protected Judas in his many battles. As the stories of this 
 peculiar book flew from mouth to mouth men felt that God 
 had risen in his holy wrath once more — the Lord of Hosts 
 again, as in Daniel's time — and was fighting for his people. If 
 people accepted it as a prophecy, four centuries old — as an 
 ancient book which the author discovered — that made its 
 appeal all the more powerful. This remarkable author was 
 not only a patriot, he was a devoutly religious man, and his 
 purpose was to bring back the hearts and minds of the Jews 
 to a faithful worship of God. The success of Maccabaeus was 
 but incidental to that great consummation. The coming of the 
 "son of man" was a figure of speech, a personification of re- 
 ligious Utopia, by which he meant the faithfulness, once more, 
 of God's chosen people. 
 
128 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 Recapitulation of Dates. 
 
 b. c. 
 Jacob's Blessing, (Gen. xlix.) was probably composed as 
 
 early as 1 200 
 
 The Covenant, (Ex. xxi-xxiii : 18,) perhaps reached its 
 present form, with few exceptions, as early as 1 1 50 
 
 The Song of Deborah and the Hero-Stories of the book 
 of Judges were probably put into literary form by ... . 1 100 
 
 The Wars of fahveh and the Book of Jasher, embodied 
 in later histories, were perhaps completed a little 
 before 1 000 
 
 The Acts of Solomon and the Books of Nathan and Gad 
 concerning King David, probably composed before.. . . 900 
 
 The Decalogue, in some primitive form, may have been 
 as old as the Temple, but was hot put into its present 
 shape, with its lofty moral teaching, until later than . . 800 
 
 Amos, perhaps completed by 770 
 
 The Prophet-History, which consists of the story parts of 
 Gen. Ex. Lev. Num. and Josh., belongs to that great 
 literary period of sixty or seventy years in the middle 
 part of the 8th Cent. 
 
 The Song of Solomon, same period 8th Cent. 
 
 The Song of Moses and Moses' Blessing, (Deut. xxxii. and 
 xxxiii.) are thought by many to be separate produc- 
 tions of the same period 8th Cent. 
 
 Psalms, a few, such as the 3d, 4th, 5th, nth, 20th, 21st, 
 
 same period 8th Cent. 
 
 The Chronicles of the Kings of Israel and the Chronicles 
 of the Kings of Judah, embodied in later histories, 
 same period 8th Cent. 
 
 Proverbs, first collection, (chaps, x — xxii : 16,) same pe- 
 riod 8th Cent. 
 
 Rosea, perhaps completed by 745 
 
 Zechariah, small portion, (chaps, ix-xi.) about 734 
 
 Micah, about 720 
 
 Isaiah, the Great, (chaps, i — xiii : 9, and xiv : 24 — xx, and 
 xxi : n — xxiii., and xxviii-xxxiii), written at intervals 
 during the preceding thirty years, was not completed 
 until about 710 
 
THE JEWISH REFORMATION. 129 
 
 B. C. 
 
 Psalms, 46th, 48th, 76th, probably 701 
 
 Deuteronomy, main body of the work 621 
 
 Proverbs, second collection, (chaps; i-ix.) possibly as 
 
 early as 620 
 
 Zephaniah, probably 606 
 
 Nahum, probably 605 
 
 Job, with the exception of the speeches of Elihu, which 
 
 were a late addition, about 600 
 
 Psalms, a few, like 42d, 43d, about 600 
 
 Habakkuk, about 590 
 
 Jeremiah, written in discourses at different times during 
 
 a period of forty years, closing with 580 
 
 Lamentations, separate poems, composed probably dur- 
 ing a period of eight or ten years, ending with 575 
 
 The Law oj Holiness, (Lev. xvii-xxvi), the work of sev- 
 eral years and several authors, completed about 575 
 
 Ezekiel, about 570 
 
 Zechariah, small portion, (chaps, xii-xiv), about 570 
 
 Judges, 1st and 2d Samuel (originally one book), 1st and 
 2d Kings (originally one book), were doubtless the 
 
 work of a generation and were completed about 540 
 
 Psalms, a few, such as 14th, 51st, 90th, 137th, about 540 
 
 Obadiah, probably in 538 
 
 Pseudo-Isaiah, (chaps, xxxiv-xxxv.) 537 
 
 Isaiah, the Second, (chaps, xl-lxvi), completed about 536 
 
 Another Pseudo-Isaiah, (chaps, xxiv-xxvii), between 525 & 520 
 
 Zechariah, (chaps, i-viii) 520 
 
 Haggai 5 20 
 
 Joel, about 520 
 
 Psalms, a few, notably 135th 516 
 
 The Priestcode, (the ecclesiastical portions of Gen., Ex., 
 Lev., Num. and Josh.) was a long and tedious work, 
 
 completed about 458 
 
 Ezra, the memoirs, those parts written in the 1st person, 
 
 completed about 445 
 
 Malachi, about 440 
 
 Nehemiah, the memoirs, those portions written in the 1st 
 
 person, probably completed about 42$ 
 
 17 
 
ISO RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 B. C. 
 
 Proverbs, a third collection, (chaps, xxii : 17 — xxxi), pos- 
 sibly completed before 400 
 
 Ruth, about 400 
 
 Jonah, about 400 
 
 The Pentateuch, put into its present form, by fusing The 
 Prophet-History and The Priestcode, probably later 
 
 than 400 
 
 Psalms, the great body of them — the psalms of the Tem- 
 ple and the Law — were composed during the 4th Cent. 
 
 Chronicles, 1st and 2d, originally one book, first half of 
 
 the 3d Cent. 
 
 Ezra and Nehemiah, put into their present forms, con- 
 taining the edited memoirs, first half of the 3d Cent. 
 
 Esther, about 250 
 
 Ecclesiastes, about 225 
 
 Psalms, 44th, 74th, about 167 
 
 Daniel 165 
 
THE CRITICS. 181 
 
 CHAPTER XL 
 
 The Critics. 
 
 In Scotla7id. 
 
 " No scholar would suppose that Moses was the author of the 
 Pentateuch." So says Max Muller, in the twentieth lecture of 
 The Gifford Lectures for the year 1888. 
 
 The Gifford Lectureships were founded by that noble Scotch- 
 man, eminent alike as jurist, judge, financier and religious 
 philosopher, Lord Adam Gifford, who, in the year 1885, be- 
 queathed $500,000 to the four universities of Scotland — Glasgow, 
 Edinburgh, Aberdeen and St. Andrews — "to establish in each 
 a lectureship for promoting, advancing, teaching and diffusing 
 the study of Natural Theology in the widest sense of that 
 term." The wide sense of that term, Lord Gifford defines as 
 " The knowledge of The Infinite, the knowledge of His nature 
 and attributes, the knowledge of the relations which men and 
 the whole universe bear to Him, the knowledge of the. nature 
 and foundation of morals and of all obligations and duties 
 thence arising." 
 
 Lord Gifford says in his bequest : " I wish my lecturers to 
 treat religion as a strictly natural science, the greatest of all 
 possible sciences, indeed, in one sense, the only science, that of 
 Infinite Being, without reference to or reliance upon any sup- 
 posed exceptional and so-called miraculous revelation. I wish 
 religion to be considered just as astronomy or chemistry is. 
 I am persuaded that nothing but good can result from free 
 discussion." This generous and thoughtful donor also stipu- 
 lated as follows : " The lecturers shall be subjected to no test 
 of any kind, and shall not be required to emit or subscribe any 
 declaration of belief ; they may be of any denomination what- 
 ever, or of no denomination at all, (and many earnest and high- 
 minded men prefer to belong to no ecclesiastical denomina- 
 
132 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 tion) ; they may be of any religion or way of thinking, or, as is 
 sometimes said, they may be of no religion, or they may be 
 so-called sceptics, or agnostics, or free-thinkers, provided only 
 that they be able, reverent men, true thinkers, sincere lovers of 
 and earnest seekers after truth." 
 
 Lord Gifford was convinced that two things are essentual to 
 the attainment of truth : i, absolute freedom and candor of 
 thought ; 2, a reverent and earnest love of the true and the 
 right. Heart and brain must work together. Without the 
 spirit of reverence, inquiry becomes hypercritical ; without per- 
 fect mental freedom, sentiment becomes prejudice and perver- 
 sion. Dear old Dr. Hemmenway of Garrett Biblical Institute 
 used to pray: "O Lord, give us both faith and reason, for 
 without faith reason is skepticism, and without reason faith is 
 fananticism." Lord Gifford felt that the ultimate and exact 
 truth of everything is God's clearest revelation, and religion's 
 only safe and enduring bulwark. He was not one of those, 
 characterized by Mr. Savage, who " prate about science and 
 trust superstition ; who declare the earth is solid gold but fear 
 to scratch it an inch below the surface lest it turn out brass." 
 He had faith that the universe is founded in the Divine Life, 
 and that the facts of the universe and of human history and 
 experience must establish the most reverent belief in God. He 
 understood that the highest scholarship is required to find and 
 arrange and set forth multitudes of facts, scientific, historic and 
 philosophic, on which a perception of man's complete religious 
 experience may be based. In the true spirit of a judge he 
 dreaded above all things the genius of assumption and special 
 pleading, either for or against. He had perfect confidence in 
 the facts. 
 
 The Scotch universities must accept his Lectureships on his 
 exact conditions or not at all. To accept, committed them to 
 absolute freedom of thought and speech, practically prohibited 
 them from longer being sectarian institutions. They should 
 henceforth be, not the thrones of any ism, but the thrones of 
 untrammeled scholarship. It speaks wonderful things for the 
 progress of liberty and rationalism in Scotland that they all 
 accepted the bequests and have met their requirements in letter 
 and in spirit. We can hardly imagine that many of our Ameri- 
 
TEE CRITICS. 133 
 
 can universities would accept a theological lectureship in which 
 sectarianism was ruled out and wherein the only stipulations 
 were that the lecturer should be " an able, reverent man, a true 
 thinker, a sincere lover of and earnest seeker after truth." It 
 was in the presence of the faculty and students of the University 
 of Glasgow, and in presence of many leaders of the Scotch 
 orthodox churches, that Max Muller, one of the most profound 
 scholars that ever lived, said : " No scholar would suppose that 
 Moses was the author of the Pentateuch." Scotland not only 
 hears, it nobly seconds, that fearlessness and candor of scholar- 
 ship. It is enough for the students of Higher Criticism to 
 recall that the land of Knox is to-day represented by The Crit- 
 ical Review and The Expository Times, and that Prof. S. D. F. 
 Salmond and Dr. A. B. Davidson speak right out from the heart 
 of Midlothian. Scotland indeed is scarcely behind Germany in 
 its rational and scientific treatment of all religious themes. 
 Scotland, the great theological mother, has gotten over her 
 little sectarian fears, and is half a century or more in advance 
 of her American children. 
 
 In England. 
 
 Of the two great universities of England, Cambridge has long 
 been considered especially liberal. Cambridge is the English 
 champion of German Biblical scholarship. " Prof. Robertson 
 Smith," says Joseph Henry Crooker, "is by far the greatest 
 Biblical scholar at Cambridge University, if not in Great Bri- 
 tain." Prof. Smith says: "It is sufficient to name Kuenen 
 and Wellhausen as the men whose acumen and research have 
 carried this enquiry (the late date and composite character of 
 the Pentateuch) to a point where nothing of vital importance 
 for the historical study of the Old Testament religion remains 
 uncertain." 
 
 Oxford has long been supposed the stronghold of conserv- 
 atism. In former times it was such, but the Hibbert Lectures 
 of Oxford correspond very closely with the Gifford Lectures of 
 the Scotch universities. The Hibbert Lectureship has given to 
 the world such renowned and rationalistic works as Dr. Hatch's 
 "Influence of Greek Ideas on Christianity," and Prof. Sayce's if Re- 
 
134 RESULTS OF HIGHER? CRITICISM. 
 
 ligion of Ancient Assyria and Babylonia," and Prof. Pfleiderer's 
 "Paid and Christianity" and Kuenen's "National and Universal 
 Religions," and Rhys Davids' "Buddhism," and Renan's "Influ- 
 ence of Roman Institutions on Christianity," and Le Page 
 Renouf s "Religion of Egypt," and Max Miiller's "Religions of 
 India." As another indication of what Oxford is doing, it may- 
 be noted that our famous Dr. Briggs, with Prof. Salmond of 
 Aberdeen, are the joint editors of The International Theological 
 Library, their purpose being to set forth in fifteen or twenty 
 books, by various authors, the ripest scholarship of the nine- 
 teenth century, on the great subjects of Biblical controversy. 
 One of the noblest books of this library is entitled "Introduc- 
 tion to the Literature of the Old Testament." Its author is R. S. 
 Driver, D. D., Regius Professor of Hebrew and Canon of Christ 
 Church, Oxford. Professor Driver is by universal consent one 
 of the most profound Hebrew scholars of the world, and his 
 book of 500 closely written pages is the most searching and 
 exhaustive treatise that has ever been published on Hebrew 
 literature. He is very cautious and apologetic, and always 
 inclined to understate his own progressive conclusions. In 
 his long chapter on the books of the Pentateuch he carefully 
 weighs all the arguments that have ever been put forth in favor 
 of the traditional theory, and shows, in the kindliest spirit, how 
 weak and how futile those arguments are, and says: "The 
 Mosaic authorship cannot be sustained." Then he proceeds to 
 show that the " Books of Moses " had many authors and a slow 
 growth ; that the earliest parts of them were not put in shape 
 for a hundred years after Moses died, and that the latest were 
 not made for a thousand years after the traditional date of the 
 death of Moses. That is the teaching of conservative old 
 Oxford — teaching commonly accepted without a murmur or a 
 thought of dissent in the Church of England. That great book 
 of Canon Driver's is the very first on the list of the Interna- 
 tional Library, edited by Dr. Salmond and Dr. Briggs, for 
 circulation among the orthodox ministers of all churches 
 throughout the world. 
 
 Dr. Driver divides Isaiah into three or four books, bringing 
 the latest down to the times of captivity ; he dates the book of 
 Job as late as 600 B.C., and rules out the speeches of Elihu ; he 
 
THE CRITICS. 133 
 
 calls Ecclesiastes a pessimistic work, and says that " its teach- 
 ings, as a whole, if followed consistently, would tend directly 
 to paralyze human effort, to stifle every impulse to self-denial 
 or philanthropy, to kill all activity of an ennobling or unself- 
 ish kind," and he inclines to the opinion that it was written in 
 the 3d century B. C. He dates Daniel in the time of the Mac- 
 cabaean wars ; with Kuenen, he concludes that the great body of 
 the Psalms constitute " The Hymn-book of the Second Tem- 
 ple;" indeed, the large majority of the dates given in the last 
 chapter are Oxford dates. 
 
 In Holland and Germany. 
 
 The names constantly appealed to by the Biblical students of 
 the entire world, are the names of that great and reverent 
 Dutchman, and that equally eminent and devout German — 
 Kuenen and Wellhausen. These two men have been to the 
 Higher Criticism what Darwin and Spencer have been to the 
 philosophy and evolution. The University of Leiden, founded 
 by William the Silent ; nurtured by the fathers of the Dutch 
 Republic ; blessed by the patronage of John Olden-Barneveldt ; 
 honored by the learning of Hugo Grotius ; the mother of great 
 students, from Erpenius to Simon Episcopus and John Marck, 
 has been for three centuries, in a unique sense, the home of ad- 
 vancing Biblical scholarship. It is to-day the great university 
 of the Dutch Reformed Church, and it is from Leiden and for 
 Leiden that Abraham Kuenen speaks. He was born in Haar- 
 lam in 1828, entered Leiden in '46, took his Doctor's degree in 
 '51, and was immediately appointed a tutor in the university. 
 In '55 he was given a Professorship, and in the same year 
 married the daughter of Professor Muurhng of Groningen, a 
 lady of great scholarly attainments, whose sympathies were 
 with her lather's liberalism. Prof. Muurling was the leader of 
 Dutch Liberalism, and young Kuenen was inspired with love 
 and liberality at the same time. He plunged immediately into 
 his life-work— the scientific study of the Old Testament. At 
 the end of six years of laborious research, with all the patience 
 and persistence and thoroughness of which the Dutch nature 
 is capable, he began to write his great work on "Historical- 
 
 l 
 
136 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 Critical Inquiry into the Origin of the Old Testament Books." 
 Of course Kuenen was not a pioneer. Capellus and Richard 
 Simon and Spinoza and Hobbs and others of the 17th century, 
 Astruc and Eichhorn and Ilgen and others of the 18th century, 
 Vater and De Wette and Greisbach and Bleek and Ewald and 
 Vatke and Knobel and others of the first half of the 19th cen- 
 tury, had been toiling in the same direction. Kuenen was not 
 a pioneer, but he was the great organizer of the mass of facts 
 and suggestions which all the preceding scholars had heaped 
 up. In 1865, after ten years of ceaseless toil, the Historical- 
 Critical Inquiry was completed. M. Renan wrote a preface for 
 the French edition, in which he declared it "the completest, 
 most methodical, and most judicious of all the attempts to give 
 a full view of the results of research into the ancient Hebrew 
 literature." 
 
 It was an epoch-making book, but it was not in type before 
 Kuenen felt that a new study was required. He went immedi- 
 ately to work on "The History of Israel, 1 ' and after another five 
 years that masterful book appeared. The History of Israel, 
 scientifically speaking, followed the Inquiry as Darwin's 
 Descent of Man followed the Origin of Species, and Kuenen 's 
 two books have revolutionized theology as Darwin's have 
 revolutionized science. They are storehouses of learning 
 from which the materials for a thousand books have 
 been drawn ; and they present a systemized philosophy of 
 religion, clear, majestic, irrefutable, in the light of which all 
 modern students of the Bible are inspired, and without a knowl- 
 edge of whose contents, no man can longer be reckoned as a 
 Bible student. 
 
 The books by which popular American readers have become 
 acquainted with Kuenen are the three volumes called " The Bible 
 for Learners," and which contains the gist of his Old Testa- 
 ment studies. This work is of joint authorship with Drs. Oort 
 and Hooykaas. The great scholar proceeded with his task, 
 and wrote "Prophets and Prophecy in Israel," and until his 
 strength failed he ceased not in the labor so lovingly adopted 
 in his youth. His Doctor's thesis in 1851 was an edition of 
 part of the Arabic version of the Samaritan Genesis, and in 
 1889 he was still revising "The Hexateuch" He died in 1891, 
 
THE CRITICS. 187 
 
 after a long and painful illness, and " he was mourned," says 
 Prof. Toy, " by the university, by the city, and by many in all 
 lands who had never seen him." 
 
 The University of Marburg, the oldest Protestant university 
 in the world, and one of the most famous, founded by the Land- 
 grave of Hesse, (friend of Luther,) and which in the seven- 
 teenth century took its place as one of the foremost Calvinistic 
 schools — it is from ancient, Calvinistic Marburg and for Mar- 
 burg that the leading Biblical scholar of Germany, Julius Well- 
 hausen, speaks. Wellhausen is to Kuenen what Spencer is to 
 Darwin. Darwin and Kuenen collected and arranged facts in 
 systematic order. Spencer and Wellhausen have moulded the 
 facts into rich literary philosophies. Wellhausen's "Prolegom- 
 ena to the History of Israel" deals with life and religion as 
 well as external fact ; it is sympathetic, worshipful, affirmative ; 
 the kind of a book that makes all religions kin, and wakes the 
 brotherhood of all men. 
 
 When the editors and publishers of the Encyclopedia Britan- 
 nica looked about for the one scholar in all the world who was 
 most thoroughly equipped for the great task of setting forth 
 Bibical history in their famous work, they had no difficulty in 
 finding the man. They selected the one in whose transcendent 
 learning and literary genius and reverent spirit the scholars of 
 all nations have confidence — Julius Wellhausen, the beloved 
 disciple of Abraham Kuenen. Go to your Britannica and read 
 the articles of Wellhausen on "Israel" and "Pentateuch" and find 
 the same story that all the great scholars tell — the narrative 
 portions of the "Books of Moses" in the eighth century B. C, 
 the body of Deuteronomy in the seventh century, part of Levit- 
 icus in the sixth century, the fully developed priestcode in the 
 fifth century. 
 
 Time would fail me to speak of Graf, who shares the honor 
 of certain critical discoveries with Kuenen as Wallace shares 
 the principle of evolution with Darwin ; of Pfleiderer, of the 
 University of Berlin, whose "Philosophy of Religion" is the most 
 comprehensive and instructive yet written ; of Strack, who says 
 that the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is no longer ac- 
 cepted by anybody but Americans ; of Schiirer, whose " History 
 
138 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 of the Jewish People in the Time of Christ " is a mine of schol- 
 arly riches; or of any of that "one hundred great students of 
 the present day," whose learning Mr. Crooker deems perfectly 
 conclusive, and all of whom agree to abandon the Mosaic 
 authorship and the unity of Isaiah, and who treat all the books 
 of the Old Testament historically and naturally as they treat 
 other books. 
 
 In America. 
 
 We Americans, in most regards, are a progressive people, and 
 it has been our boast that we have kept in advance of other 
 nations, but in the matter of theology the average American 
 church and the average American teacher have fallen back to 
 the rear. The churches and the religious teachers of other 
 nations are fifty years ahead of the average American. The 
 great scholarly conclusions which are received as matters of 
 course in France, Switzerland, Germany, Holland, England and 
 Scotland, which the staunchest of church people have come to 
 regard as the common sense principles of religious history and 
 faith, are here looked upon as startling and destructive inno- 
 vations. 
 
 Notwithstanding the keen thrust of Prof. Strack, however, 
 American students are on the way. The greatest periodical of 
 American theology is that famous quarterly review, The New 
 World, the religious voice of the Harvard University. With- 
 out detracting at all from the merits of any other school it 
 remains undisputed that Harvard is the great centre of pro- 
 gressive theological scholarship in this country. Harvard has 
 followed the example of the great universities of Scotland. In 
 securing its teachers it asks for scholarship and does not ask 
 to what church they belong. When it wanted the best Old 
 Testament scholar in the country it found him in the Baptist 
 church. Crawford H. Toy was the name of him. Harvard 
 took him. An article from his pen in a recent number of The 
 New World, on Abraham Kuenen, would, of itself, go a long 
 way toward ranking American scholarship with German. 
 When that article, together with Professor Toy's book on 
 
TEE CRITICS. 139 
 
 ''Judaism and Christianity," shall have become familiar to the 
 American clergy, a new religious era will begin. 
 
 When Prof. Shurman, (a Baptist, now President of Cornell,) 
 writes a book so philosophical and so brimming with the rational 
 spirit as his " Belief in God'" when Prof. Harper, another Bap- 
 tist, (then of Yale, now President of Chicago University,) says 
 "the scholars of Germany seem to have settled these questions ; " 
 and when Presbyterian Prof. Briggs publishes Episcopalian Dr. 
 Driver's scholarly rationalism ; and when Congregationalist 
 Prof. Moore, of Andover, commends the German Graf ; when 
 such books as Sunderland's "The Bible — Its Origin, Growth and 
 Character" and Chadwick's "The Bible of To-day" and Crook- 
 er's "The New Bible and Its New Uses," are coming rapidly 
 from the press, it begins to look as if American scholars are to 
 be included, and that Prof. Strack's thrust should be with- 
 drawn. 
 
 What does it all mean ? Is Higher Criticism destructive 
 criticism ? Can we believe or imagine that the greatest univer- 
 sities of France and Germany and Holland and England and 
 Scotland and America, that the Encyclopedia Britannica and the 
 International Theological Library are banded together in an 
 awful and world-wide conspiracy to destroy the religious faith 
 of Christendom ? One of the greatest statesman that England 
 ever produced was modest enough to say that he could not find 
 an indictment against a nation. We may safely smile at the 
 temerity which finds an indictment against the combined 
 scholarship of half a dozen nations. 
 
 What are the scholars trying to do ? They are trying to get 
 at the truths and facts of history. They are convinced that 
 religion, the same as morals and education and science and 
 art and politics and trade and every other human interest, is 
 better served by knowledge than by ignorance ; that the church 
 of the future will be more safe in the hands of reason than in 
 the hands of superstition. These men of the higher criticism, 
 French liberals, German rationalists, Dutch independents, 
 English Episcopalians, Scotch Presbyterians, American Bap- 
 tists and Unitarians, have been moved to their tasks by a pur- 
 
140 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 pose that was profoundly moral and sacredly religious. Every 
 one could say, as truly did Jesus : " I am not come to destroy, 
 but to fulfil." With the single exception of Renan, I do not 
 believe the world has produced another set of men who were at 
 once so scholarly and so devout as the men of the higher criti- 
 cism, Renan has always been a man of literature rather than a 
 man of prayer. He must be ranked with Strauss and Matthew 
 Arnold. No man who knows anything about them can believe 
 that any of the three has been other than honest and truth- 
 loving. For all the rest, they are men of the most worshipful 
 character, men of the most profound faith and hope, whose 
 pages warm the heart with generous love and noble faith while 
 they lift the mind above the fogs of superstition into the sun- 
 light of religious truth. 
 
INCIDENTAL RESULTS. 141 
 
 CHAPTER XII 
 Incidental Results. 
 
 The direct results of Higher Criticism are such facts of au- 
 thorship, date, circumstance and meaning as have been indi- 
 cated in the preceding chapters. The incidental results are 
 such changes of theory and conviction and popular sentiment 
 as naturally grow out of these facts. Incidental results are 
 always more important than direct results. The direct result 
 of Jesus' preaching was to inspire a small minority of the Jews 
 with a decided feeling that conduct and character were more 
 divine than the rites and ceremonies of the Temple : the in- 
 cidental result was the establishment of the Christian Church. 
 The direct result of the labors of Petrarch and Boccaccio was 
 the resurrection of the classic literatures of Greece and Rome : 
 the incidental results were the humanizing of modern thought, 
 the dethronement of theology, the secularizing of European 
 ambitions, the growth of science and popular education. The 
 direct result of the voyages of Columbus was the discovery 
 of West India and South America : the incidental results 
 were the colonization of the new world and the transformation 
 of the old. The direct results of the labors of Darwin are the 
 denial of spontaneous life in the vegetable and animal world ; a 
 recognition of the facts of living parentage for everything that 
 lives, the development of new species from old by differentia- 
 tion, the survival of the fittest and the eternal law of progress : 
 the incidental results are denial of creation and miracle, and the 
 substitution of evolutionary forces and procedures in such wide 
 form as to embrace man, mind, civilization, religion and im- 
 mortality itself. The incidental results of Higher Criticism 
 will be a readjustment of theories concerning the Bible ; nay, 
 a complete revolution of theology ; the abandonment of the 
 old and the substitution of a new philosophy of revelation and 
 providence. 
 
142 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 The "All or None" Theory. 
 
 This venerable theory of the Bible, which is only a bluff to 
 frighten the timid and rouse the prejudice of the ignorant, 
 declares that everything written in the Bible is true, or else, 
 that we have no reason for believing that anything it contains 
 is true. If the account of creation in Genesis is not scientifi- 
 cally correct, we have no right to suppose that the golden rule 
 is ethically correct. If you doubt the historic reality of Jonah's 
 exploits, you have no reason for accepting the historic reality 
 of Paul's missionary tours. If Samson was a myth, you may 
 as well say that Jesus was a myth. If it was not right, as re- 
 corded in the 137th psalm, to take an enemy's little child and 
 dash its brains out against a stone, then it is not right, as re- 
 corded in the fifth chapter of Matthew, to love your enemies 
 and do good to them that hate you. If God did not approve 
 and bless Jehu for a massacre as black and loathsome as St. 
 Bartholomew, as the tenth chapter of Second Kings tells us he 
 did, then you have no right to believe that God approved the 
 purity and charity of Christ, as the entire New Testament de- 
 clares. 
 
 If you had a friend who applied that theory to any other 
 book in the world you would feel worried — not about the book 
 but about your friend. In the works of Byron and Burns and 
 Walt Whitman are some things that a respectable man ought 
 to be ashamed of having written ; will your friend, therefore, 
 denounce everything they have written as base and disrepu- 
 table ? All students agree that Macaulay misrepresented Wil- 
 liam Penn ; will your friend, therefore, denounce everything 
 that Macaulay wrote as false and slanderous ? All artists un- 
 derstand that the old Italian masters were guilty of serious 
 blunders in their painting of trees and in the general arrange- 
 ment of their foregrounds ; will your friend, therefore, assume 
 that the old masters did not know how to paint the human face 
 and figure ? You will be inquiring whether some ancestor of 
 that friend did not die with softening of the brain. 
 
 The All or None theory claims that the Bible is infallible 
 and inerrant. There is no mistake as to historic fact and no 
 error as to moral teaching in the entire book. On that dan- 
 gerous and ridiculous foundation, the defenders of the faith 
 
INCIDENTAL RESULTS. 143 
 
 take their stand. In order to show you how frail and how 
 foolish is their challenge, it is not necessary to recall that some 
 parts of the Bible contradict science, that some parts of it con- 
 tradict history, that some parts of it contradict morality, it is 
 enough to remember that upon the greatest and most vital 
 questions with which it deals, the Bible contradicts itself. 
 
 Tne first great subject treated in its pages is "Creation." 
 There are two accounts. One in the first chapter of Genesis, 
 and one in the second chapter. These two accounts contradict 
 each other at every point. The first chapter says that creation 
 occupied six days : the second chapter says that it occupied one 
 day. The first chapter teaches that the new-made earth was 
 covered with water : the second chapter teaches that the new- 
 made earth was so dry that vegetation could not grow. The 
 first chapter teaches that vegetation and animals existed before 
 man : the second chapter teaches that man existed before an- 
 imals or vegetation. The first chapter teaches that man and wo- 
 man were created at the same time : the second chapter teaches 
 that man alone was made, then vegetation and animals were 
 producer;, then the Garden was planted, and after all of that 
 woman was made. We need not pause to ask which of these 
 accounts is true, or whether they are both guesses — the one 
 important fact, which any child can see, is the impossbility 
 that both can be true. 
 
 One of the most important themes with which any book can 
 deal is the nature and character of God's dealing with men. 
 In the Old Testament God is often represented as tempting 
 men to do wrong, We are told that he tempted Abraham, that 
 He inspired Jacob to dishonesty, that He hardened Pharaoh's 
 heart, that He incited the Israelites to get possession of jewels 
 and rings under false pretenses ; that he taught Moses to de- 
 ceive. Of course, people would become ashamed of such re- 
 ligious teachings as that, and in the New Testament it is de- 
 nounced as false. "God cannot be tempted of evil; neither 
 tempt eth He any man. Let no man say, ' I am tempted of God.' 
 He is tempted when he is drawn away of his own iust." We 
 sympathize with the New Testament, but that is not the point. 
 The point is that the Bible contradicts itself, and that both 
 teachings cannot be true. Will you say that in the Old Testa- 
 
144 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 ment times God did tempt men, but that in the New Testament 
 times he did not ? Then let us turn to one particular act, of which 
 we have contradictory accounts in the Old Testament itself. You 
 remember the story of how David once numbered the people 
 for the purpose of finding out how many soldiers he could 
 muster. He took the census that he might enforce the draft. 
 And you remember that for doing so a pestilence came and 
 killed 70,000 of his men. Now, the question is, Why did David 
 make that wicked census ? Who induced him to do it ? Turn 
 to the twenty-fourth chapter of Second Samuel and read that 
 God "moved (z". e., inspired, induced, commanded, tempted) 
 David to number the people." Now, turn to the twenty-first 
 chapter of First Chronicles and read the contradictory account. 
 There you are told that it was Satan who "provoked" David 
 to number the people. Whether this account or that is any 
 more or better than the childish theory of a primitive intelli- 
 gence is not the issue. The issue is that the two statements 
 contradict each other, and both cannot be true. 
 
 If you were to ask any Evangelical believer what is the 
 supreme subject with which the Bible deals, he would instantly 
 reply, in one word — " Christ." If anywhere in the Bible, and 
 on any subject, we should expect absolute agreement between 
 the different writers, it is in the Gospel accounts of Christ. The 
 simple fact is, however, that the Gospels begin their story with 
 mutual contradictions. In the second chapter of Matthew we 
 are told that Herod was still living at the time of Christ's 
 birth, and that the wicked king was seeking to kill the infant 
 Christ, and that, to avoid Herod, Joseph fled with the young 
 child into Egypt. In the second chapter of Luke we are told, 
 by implication, either that Herod was dead or that he had not 
 the slightest disposition to harm the child of Joseph and Mary. 
 We are distinctly told that the child was not taken to Egypt at 
 all, but was taken to Jerusalem and publicly presented in the 
 Temple, and from there was taken to his parent's home in Naz- 
 areth. The question is not which of these accounts is true, or 
 whether there was anything more than a floating and irrespon- 
 sible tradition for either account. We are not dealing with 
 questions just now. We must face the simple fact that both of 
 these accounts cannot be true. 
 
INCIDENTAL RESULTS. 143 
 
 We would all say that there is no other subject with which 
 the Bible deals that is more important than the question of 
 future life. Turn to Ecclesiastes and read : " The dead know 
 not anything, neither have they any more reward. * * * * 
 There is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom in 
 the grave whither thou goest. * * * That which befalleth 
 the sons of men befalleth the beasts ; even one thing befalleth 
 them all; as one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all 
 one breath, so that a man hath no pre-eminence above a beast." 
 There you have it — as bald materialism and as blank denial of 
 the future life as ever was written. Turn over to Corinthians 
 and read : " As we have borne the image of the earthy we shall 
 also bear the image of the heavenly * * * for we know that 
 if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved we have 
 a building of God, eternal in the heavens. * * * O death ! 
 where is thy sting ? O grave ! where is thy victory ? " Our 
 souls leap up at these triumphant words of St. Paul and claim 
 them as divinely true. But if they are true the words in Eccle- 
 siastes are false. 
 
 The "One Book" Theory. 
 
 When you speak to a child or a child-like man about a book, 
 he naturally concludes that it was written by a single person. 
 When you explain to him that it was written by seventy-five or 
 a hundred different persons, he concludes that all of them 
 worked together with mutual understanding and purpose. 
 When you tell him that these various authors were scattered 
 over a period of a thousand years, he gropes for a dim idea 
 that there must have been some kind of supernatural direction, 
 that one great mind must have kept the oversight and super- 
 intended the work. There must be unity of teaching— ^how 
 else can it be a book ? When you explain that every great sub- 
 ject dealt with by these various authors is differently treated — 
 that one writer is a materialist and another a stout believer in 
 immortality — that one attributes an act to God which another 
 attributes to the Devil — that one says all human suffering is 
 punishment for sin while another says it is God's way of 
 strengthening and blessing the good — that one teaches the 
 19 
 
146 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 resurrection of the body and another flatly denies and ridicules 
 it — that one teaches the miraculous conception of Christ while 
 another tells us that Joseph was his father — that one proclaims 
 the law of retaliation, " an eye for an e)'e," while another 
 denounces that law — that some claim God as the god of the 
 Hebrews only, having no love or care for any other people, 
 while some teach that He is the Father of all — when you make 
 it plain, as Higher Criticism does, that there is no unity of 
 teaching among the various Bible writers on a single great 
 theory with which they deal, even a child must confess that the 
 Bible is not a book but a literature. 
 
 When the fragmentary character of nearly all the Old Testa- 
 ment writings, especially, is pointed out, and men become 
 convinced, as Higher Criticism convinces every man who dares 
 to read, that psalm and prophetic exhortation and history are 
 often broken and patched, mere collections of disjointed para- 
 graphs, then it must be concluded that what we have in our 
 Old Testament is but the remains, from many a destruction, of 
 what constituted, at various periods, Hebrew literature. 
 
 Suppose you took a chapter from The Lives of the Saints 
 and a few great sections from Dante's Inferno, and Calvin's 
 Five Points, and Luther's Theses, and two or three of Wesley's 
 Sermons Against Calvinism, and a few of the choice poems of 
 Browning and Tennyson and Longfellow and Whittier, with 
 some Unitarian sermons by King and Savage and Blake ; a 
 few of the broad and brotherly editorials by Lyman Abbott, 
 and the creed of the Universalist church, and Emerson's essa)^ 
 on Worship and Religion and the Over Soul — suppose you 
 should bind these all up in one cover and send the book to the 
 interior of China and tell those people that it was the Christians' 
 Book of Religion — the Chinamen would find several kinds of 
 Christianity in it, wouldn't they? Suppose you told them that 
 every word of it was true, or that none of it was true. They 
 would make note of the contradictions and come to a conclu- 
 sion, wouldn't they ? If there were some higher critics among 
 those Chinamen they would say to the people, " This is not 
 one book, it is a collection, it represents the growth of Chris- 
 tian thoughts and feelings through several centuries. Emerson 
 is not responsible for these absurdities in The Lives of the 
 
INCIDENTAL RESULTS. 147 
 
 Saints. Whittier and Abbott and the Universalist creed are 
 not responsible for Dante's thought of hell or Wesley's belief 
 in God's infinite wrath or Calvin's estimate of the Divine 
 vengeance. Try these various spirits, prove these writings, 
 test these beliefs and hold fast that which is good." 
 
 That is what Higher Criticism is doing for the teachings of 
 the Bible. It is simply showing that the Bible writers, age after 
 age, wrote what they believed ; that there is a progress of 
 thought and moral sentiment as age succeeds age, and that one 
 author is not responsible for what another has written. 
 
 Still we have people in the world who ask : " If there are 
 errors in the Bible, how then do we know there is truth, and 
 how shall we know what parts of it are true and what untrue ?" 
 Well, my friends, I do not believe in capital punishment — not 
 even for stupidity — and so I shall continue to explain. If 
 March is not a delightful month how can you know that June 
 is delightful ? If disease is not enjoyable how do you know 
 that health is enjoyable? If such characters as Quilp and 
 Fagan and Pecksniff are not ideal, how do you know that you 
 ought to think well of John Jarndyce and Florence Dombey ? 
 If Don Juan is not exactly the thing you wish your boys and 
 girls to read, how do you know that it will be safe for them to 
 read Snow Bound ? 
 
 Any frail human being who has judgment enough to decide 
 between these things has judgment enough to decide between 
 the 137th Psalm and the Golden Rule ; has judgment enough 
 to decide between Ecclesiastes and Corinthians ; has judgment 
 enough to decide between the book of Esther and the twelfth 
 chapter of Romans; has judgment enough to decide between 
 the character of Solomon and the character of Jesus. All that 
 any man needs is to cut loose from the " all or none " theory 
 and the "one book" theory and exercise his judgment. 
 
 You might as well say that because Benedict Arnold was a 
 traitor there has never been a patriot in America, as to say that 
 a mistake committed by Ezra vitiates a truth uttered by Paul. 
 You might as well say that because the wild flowers are not 
 blooming in December there is no beauty of a June landscape, 
 as to say that the moral crudities of Genesis destroy the moral 
 perfections of the Sermon on the Mount. Suppose the story 
 
148 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 of Washington's hatchet is a legend, what has that to do with 
 Washington's honor as commander and president ? Suppose 
 the stories about Christ's birth are legends, what has that to 
 do with His character and teaching? When you are prepared 
 to say that Washington was a fraud unless the hatchet story is 
 historic, then say that Christ's teaching is not to be trusted 
 unless the angel-stories of His birth and resurrection are his- 
 toric. Higher Criticism proceeds on the innocent assumption 
 that when men become acquainted with the facts of the Bible 
 they will apply the same common sense to its teachings that 
 they exercise in reading all other books. 
 
 The " Miraculous Revelation " Theory. 
 
 Two things are necessary in order to make any theory of 
 miraculous revelation seem reasonable, even to give any faint 
 excuse for its existence : 
 
 I. It must be shown that the revelation teaches something 
 which men could not learn otherwise. 
 
 II. It must be shown that the thing taught is of supreme 
 importance. 
 
 Whatever the peculiar form of theory may be : that God 
 wrote the revelation, as people used to believe He wrote the 
 Ten Commandments on the tables of stone with his finger ; 
 that in some miraculous manner he dictated its words to the 
 human writers, as people used to believe concerning the 
 prophecies ; that in any mysterious way He suggested ideas to 
 the human authors, or so impressed their feelings as to direct 
 and superintend the work, as our modern apologists vaguely 
 hint — however the miraculous revelation is conceived, it must 
 prove itself by these two signs : that its teaching could not be 
 arrived at by natural means and that said teaching is of 
 supreme importance. 
 
 What are the supremely important teachings of the Old 
 Testament ? The moral commands and exhortations, the de- 
 nunciations of crime and vice, the doctrine of the One Right- 
 eous God, the teaching of providence and worship. Can it be 
 justly claimed that these sublime teachings require a miraculous 
 
INCIDENTAL RESULTS. 149 
 
 revelation ? It might be so claimed, with at least a show of 
 reason, if the Hebrews were the only people who had them ; 
 but that is not the case. No student of history can doubt that 
 Hindoos (especially Buddhists) and Egyptians had as noble 
 and fine moral teaching as the Hebrews. The Egyptians had 
 that moral teaching centuries before Moses, or even Abraham, 
 was born. The belief in providence and the practice of 
 worship belonged equally to Egyptians, Hindoos, Persians, 
 Greeks and Romans. The thought of the One Supreme God 
 is much older than any Hebrew writing, much older than the 
 Hebrew people. We must either confess that a miraculous 
 revelation was given to all these other peoples, or that the He- 
 brews were the only people by nature devoid of great intelli- 
 gence or deep moral feeling. It is a sad comment that they 
 could only get by miraculous revelation what all others at- 
 tained by the use of their native intelligence and feeling. One 
 of the most supremely important ideas in religion is the 
 thought of man's immortality. The Old Testament is the 
 only ancient literature in which that is not clearly taught, the 
 Hebrews were the only people who did not have that sublime 
 conception of the soul as a daily inspiration. The conception 
 of the Infinite Spirit is the only thought man ever had which 
 is greater than the thought of immortality : no other thought 
 is to be compared with it. This grand idea, the Hebrews were 
 practically without. Of course, they had hints of it and hopes 
 toward it, but it was no part of their religious system. Is it 
 not strange that other nations, all heathen peoples, could get 
 that sublime thought naturally, while even the miraculous 
 revelation did not impart it to the Hebrews? 
 
 Perhaps it is not these general ideas that people have in 
 mind when they speak of the Bible as a miraculous revelation. 
 It is quite probable that the average mind reverts to what is 
 called the Plan of Salvation. All men were lost in Adam ; no 
 man can be saved except by faith in the Atonement. The 
 purpose of the Bible is to reveal this universal condemnation 
 to endless woe, and this only means of escape by faith in 
 Christ's death. If that is true it is infinitely the most impor- 
 tant thing conceivable. Of course, man could know nothing 
 about that universal doom and that means of escape unless it 
 
ISO RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 were miraculously revealed to him. What judgment is passed 
 in the secret thought and purpose of God, what effect on God's 
 feelings and plans the death of Jesus might have, what awaits 
 the unbeliever millions of years hence — men can easily sur- 
 mise these things, but no man could know anything about 
 them without a miraculous revelation. If, from the beginning, 
 there was such a doom and such a means of escape, we may 
 well suppose that God would make a miraculous revelation to 
 acquaint his children with the infinitely important facts. That, 
 we are told, is exactly what He has done in the Bible. That is 
 what the Bible is for. 
 
 Let us see. The human race was lost in Adam. Men began 
 to die, and to pass into that everlasting torment. It was im- 
 mediately planned that the Atonement should be made, four 
 thousand years hence ; but its virtues could be anticipated by 
 faith. Since judgment was fixed and the means of escape 
 provided, the revelation ought to have been made, right there 
 in the Garden of Eden, before Adam and Eve had time to get 
 sick. We are told that Jahveh came and talked with them 
 about many other matters — but not a word about the endless 
 woe to which they were doomed, or the means of escape. Fif- 
 teen centuries roll by; men and women and children by the 
 countless millions have passed on ignorantly into eternal Hell ; 
 Jahveh comes again and talks familiarly and often with Noah, 
 about the things of this life ; works marvelous miracles to pre- 
 serve Noah's physical existence a few years longer on earth — 
 but not a word about the endless doom to which his beloved 
 Noah and all the rest are hastening. Another five centuries 
 roll by, and Jahveh is represented as talking, times without 
 number, to Abraham and Lot and Isaac and Jacob and Joseph ; 
 talks about all the common affairs of this world ; works mira- 
 cles by the score for these people in whom he is so peculiarly 
 interested : they and the whole human race are passing on to 
 the remediless woe — not one word about that awful and certain 
 doom, or the provided means of escape. Other centuries roll 
 by, and Jahveh is represented as continually associating with 
 Moses for at least eighty years, talking with him daily, guiding 
 his hand or his thought in the writing of five long books ; writing 
 about morals and worship, about history and war and politics, 
 
INCIDENTAL RESULTS. 131 
 
 about architecture and manufacture ; explaining with unspeak- 
 able minuteness how a sacrifice must be prepared, how a portier 
 should hang, how a priest should dress, what kind of hair-oil he 
 should use ; working miracles every day to prove his wondrous 
 love for these doomed people — but not a single word about the 
 everlasting doom which waited them, or the means of escape — 
 chapter after chapter concerning the most trivial and infinites- 
 imal concerns of rite and ceremony, but absolute silence con- 
 cerning even the fact that there was any existence whatever 
 beyond death. Other five centuries roll by ; Jahveh has often 
 talked with men, and now he is continually with David and 
 Solomon for another sixty or eighty years ; inspires David to 
 write many hymns and prayers and songs of praise ; gives unto 
 Solomon such wisdom as man never had : two or three billions 
 of people have died and gone to Hell while he was holding 
 frequent communion with David and Solomon ; they will follow 
 soon ; he loves them well enough to work constant miracles 
 for them— but not a single word about that Hell of endless 
 torment to which they all are doomed, or the means of escape. 
 Three more centuries roll by, and the great prophets, like 
 Amos and Isaiah and Micah, have spoken their word as Jahveh 
 commanded them ; the noblest parts of the Old Testament are 
 written ; everything that Jahveh wished to communicate to man- 
 kind is written, exactly as he wished it: humanity is marching 
 on to its doom ; three or four millions every year are tumbling 
 from the brink of death into endless Hell ; Jahveh is doing all 
 sorts of miraculous things every year to help his beloved along 
 with their wars and their politics and their temple service — but 
 not a word about the unending torment of the future, or the 
 means of escape. Other centuries roll by ; the Old Testament 
 is completed; inspiration ceases; Jahveh comes no more to 
 speak with men; he has said all that he has to say to the He- 
 brew people — which is nothing at all that other peoples did not 
 know just as well without any revelation : death is mowing 
 down his six or seven billions every century : the Devil gets 
 everybody; Heaven is still empty; the ages of special provi- 
 dence are past ; there is to be a long, long silence in which 
 Jahveh will not visit the earth ; the miraculous revelation is 
 now a closed book — but in it all not one single word, that any- 
 
132 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 body understood, about the universal doom or the means of 
 escape. Theologians go back and imagine they find a few 
 vague hints of these important matters, but the people to 
 whom Jahveh spake did not observe any hint. He did not 
 even succeed in arousing their curiosity about the future. The 
 entire matter could have been explained to a child in one sen- 
 tence ; but here is the Hebrew race, especially selected to re- 
 ceive this miraculous revelation of Hell and the Atonement, 
 and at the end of thirty-six or thirty-seven centuries of reve- 
 lation they have not the faintest conception of it. They are 
 even less interested in the existence beyond death than any 
 other intelligent people on the face of the earth. 
 
 I have used the word Jahveh, not the word God, for that re- 
 lieves the feeling of blasphemy which would make me un- 
 comfortable even in reciting a repudiated theory of such moral 
 turpitude. That men could think of God as knowing such a 
 doom and the means of escape, as perpetually speaking to his 
 children about other matters and keeping silent about this, 
 were enough to drive the whole world pell-mell into atheism. 
 I feel that I am writing about a myth, such as Apollo or Athena, 
 when I write of the Hebrew Jahveh. The name of God is 
 unspeakably sacred as the life and love of the universe, the 
 Infinite Father of the human race. I no more identify him 
 with the Jahveh of the Hebrews than with the Jupiter of the 
 Romans. 
 
 77ze "Miraculous Prophecy" Theory. 
 
 When it was believed that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, 
 speaking about the kings of Israel several centuries before 
 there were any kings of Israel ; when it was supposed that 
 Isaiah wrote the last twenty-seven chapters of the book which 
 bears his name, speaking of the remnant that should return 
 from captivity two hundred years later ; when it was reckoned 
 that Daniel himself was the author of the book of Daniel, de- 
 scribing kingdoms and wars four centuries in advance — then 
 of course, people thought the Hebrew writers were gifted with 
 supernatural vision, with a miraculous power of gazing into 
 the coming years and ages. Higher Criticism has shown that 
 
INCIDENTAL RESULTS. 153 
 
 in all these great instances the writings were produced after 
 the events. If there are any minor instances of like nature, a 
 more careful study will probably show the same result. There 
 is no proof that Hebrews could see into the future any further 
 or more clearly than other people. There is vast assumption 
 both by themselves and by Christians on that point, but no 
 proof. The so-called prophesies of Christ in the Old Testament 
 are the gratuitous interpretations of Christian theorists. Jews 
 never did and do not now understand them so. All those say- 
 ings which are twisted into descriptions of his person and life, 
 plainly refer to other matters. Those which have been made 
 to apply to his gospel or church, refer simply to the ideal Jew- 
 ish kingdom, the purified and perfected nation and religion, 
 which Jews dreamed for themselves, just as Greeks and Ro- 
 mans and French and English and Germans and Americans 
 and Catholics and Methodists and Unitarians, and all other 
 people, dream and appeal to the ideal time when their nation 
 or church shall be purified and powerful as they would like to 
 see it. Such a dream, such a picture of idealism, in any litera- 
 ture, can be applied, with a little pressure, to any great moral 
 reformation or any great religious character. All that the 
 Jews hoped and dreamed for their Jewish religion, Christian 
 theorists have claimed as prophecy of the Christian religion. 
 The spirit of assumption is not wanting in that claim. Moham- 
 medans could apply the same prophetic dreams to Moham- 
 med, Buddhists could apply them to Buddha, with equal 
 justice. 
 
 The u Miraculous History' Theory. 
 
 If Dante needed no help of miracles to write the Inferno, 
 why should it be supposed that the authors of the Hebrew 
 psalms needed any miraculous help? If Gibbon needed no 
 miracles to assist him with the Decline and Fall, why should 
 the authors of the Pentateuch need any ? If Plato and Shakes- 
 peare got along without special Divine aid, why could not 
 Isaiah and Micah? If no supernatural inspiration was required 
 for the production of Faust, why should any be required for 
 the production of such books as Ruth and Job? In like 
 
164 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 manner ; if the Pilgrim Fathers came over here from Holland 
 and founded a Republic in the American wilderness without 
 miraculous aid, why couldn't a band of Hebrews travel from 
 Egypt up to Canaan and establish themselves among the 
 Canaanites without miraculous aid? If Cortes needed no 
 miracles to help him conquer Mexico, and Alexander needed 
 no miracles to help him conquer the entire world, why should 
 David need miracles to help him conquer the barbarian hordes 
 about Palestine? If the Egyptian monarchy could endure 
 nearly five thousand years without any Divine assistance, why 
 couldn't the Hebrew monarchy endure five hundred years 
 without Divine assistance ? If Brahmins and Buddhists and 
 Confucians and Parsees and Catholics and Protestants could 
 found their own churches and make their own theologies and 
 build their own temples and conduct their own worship with- 
 out miraculous aid, why couldn't the Hebrews do the same ? 
 How does it come that unaided men could build up such a 
 marvelous organization as the Roman Empire, while it required 
 the constant intervention of superhuman power to keep the 
 little Jewish organism from extinction ? 
 
 But it is said that Jewish history records these countless 
 miracles ; so does Catholic history; so does Greek and Roman 
 history; but we do not grant their miracles; we can under- 
 stand their history, we can see the forces and account for all 
 the facts, with the miracles eliminated. Hebrew history is just 
 as easily accounted for without miracles. 
 
 The New Appreciation of the Bible. 
 
 Let us clearly understand that Hebrew Literature was not 
 written for the world ; that it is Jewish history and tradition 
 which the Jews wrote for themselves, with no more idea that 
 it would be used by other nations as a religious text-book than 
 Bancroft and Whittierhad that their history and poetry would 
 be so used, two thousand years hence, by some nation yet 
 unborn. Let us clearly understand that whatever genius there 
 is in the Old Testament was simply the genius of the Hebrew 
 people. The people, not their writings, are deserving of praise, 
 as if these writings had something which the people had not. 
 
INCIDENTAL RESULTS. 155 
 
 The Hebrews were not a people of specially great ideas. Their 
 science was exceedingly crude, even for their day; their his- 
 tories are blundering, even as histories went in that old time ; 
 their poetry is to the poetry of Greece and Rome about what 
 Whittier is to Shakespeare; their philosophy is lame and halt 
 and broken and patched ; their theology does not indicate any 
 wide intellectual grasp. One thing in the Hebrew people was 
 remarkably great — their moral conviction. They were a people 
 of moral conviction, as the Greeks were a people of artistic 
 sense and as the Romans were a people of conquering and 
 organizing genius. Their theories of what was right and what 
 was wrong, of how things are right or wrong, were often very 
 primitive, but their deathless love of right, put into their liter- 
 ature, illustrated by their traditions and legends and myths 
 and histories and biographies and novels and poems and rites 
 and ceremonies of four thousand years —that is what made 
 their literature so great. That sublime sense of righteousness, 
 embodied in almost everything they wrote, is what has kept 
 the Bible alive and made it the world's text-book of ethics and 
 devotion. 
 
 From the story of Eden to the Sermon on the Mount, the 
 almost constant theme of Hebrew penmen is righteousness. 
 Other nations had moral precepts as great and fine — the result 
 of a few grand moralists — but no other people were so alive to 
 the sense of morality. Hebrews looked upon morality as the 
 greatest thing in the universe — the thing for the sake of which 
 the universe was managed. All their theories of history, of 
 nature, of God, were subservient to and moulded by this su- 
 preme conviction of righteousness. Their very mistakes in 
 history and science and theology accord with this conviction, 
 for they conceived that all providence was a daily or yearly re- 
 warding of the good and punishing of the evil, and their con- 
 ceptions of what were good and evil were often erroneous. 
 
 If you begin with the Book of Genesis you will find that 
 everything is accounted for on moral grounds. The whole 
 human race became sinful because the first man was dis- 
 obedient. Suffering and death entered the world as divine . 
 punishments of guilt. When this old writer looked about him, 
 he saw what all men saw in his day ; that woman was the chief 
 
166 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 sufferer in the world, that she was generally the" slave of man ; 
 and he accounted for that sad fact on the supposition that Eve 
 had been more guilty than Adam. When he looked out upon 
 the poverty and wretchedness of the world, the toiling for 
 bread, the sweating brows of the multitude, he considered it 
 God's retribution for the sins of our first parents. Death itself, 
 to his thought the supreme calamity of the universe, was also 
 a retribution. All these things were sent as the punishments 
 for sin. They never would have been had man not sinned. 
 We have other theories now to account for these, but we must 
 not forget the profound moral conviction, the lofty belief in 
 God's moral government, which inspired the Bible writer. The 
 evils in the material world itself — how are they to be accounted 
 for? To what are the briars and thistles and poisons and pes- 
 tilences and earthquakes and cyclones due? The old Bible- 
 writer made his God say to the sinful man : " For thy sake the 
 earth is cursed." Geology teaches us a different lesson. These 
 things were present in the earth before man appeared. The 
 Bible writer was not a scientist, but we may profoundly respect 
 that moral sense of his by which he saw the whole creation 
 governed with reference to man's moral condition. 
 
 If we enlarge our view sufficiently we may explain all things 
 on the Bible-writer's principle — not on his theories, but on his 
 principle. For one, I do not believe that man was an accident 
 in an accidental world. Carry back the geological history of 
 the earth as many millions or billions of ages as you please, I 
 still believe that this earth to-day is exactly the kind of an 
 earth God meant it to be, for exactly the kind of a human race 
 that is now upon it. I believe it is the best possible world for 
 this human race. A more perfect earth, in which there were 
 no poisons and heats and frosts and sickness, might do better 
 for a race of sinless beings ; but this earth rebukes laziness, re- 
 quires toil, compels study, rewards knowledge, blesses the man 
 who keeps the laws of life, inspires all progress and punishes 
 all disobedience. When we look at it in the light of ages and 
 millenniums, we shall have a different theory from his, but we 
 shall understand these things only by applying the principle of 
 that old Bible-writer — the universe is managed in the interest 
 of morality. 
 
INCIDENTAL RESULTS. 157 
 
 We look at general laws and can only make general state- 
 ments. We do not see a special purpose in each separate 
 event, as he did. He accounted for the flood on moral grounds. 
 The human race was washed away because men became very 
 wicked. In all Semitic races there was the old tradition of a 
 flood. I suppose it was the lingering memory of the real geo- 
 logical floods of the glacier epoch. Geology shows that those 
 floods were terrible in that part of Asia inhabited by the Se- 
 mitic races. We think of it as an event in the evolution of the 
 earth. The author of Genesis made it a direct punishment of 
 human sin. 
 
 It is entirely possible that in some ancient time there was 
 a sinking of the Dead sea country. In that calamity some 
 ancient villages may have been engulfed. The old tradition is 
 worked into the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Not being a 
 scientist, not knowing anything about geology or natural law, 
 the Bible-writer gave a moral explanation. It was the punish- 
 ment of vice, and the story does not fail — Bible stories never 
 do fail— to reward all the virtue there was. 
 
 The story of the shortening of human life, from almost a thou- 
 sand years to three score and ten, is a graphic presentation 
 of the well-known fact that vice drives people to an early 
 grave, and that purity lengthens the term of life. The longer 
 we study the social problem, also, the more truth we see in the 
 principle that the human race suffers for the crime of its first 
 parents. Of course all human suffering is not due to crime, 
 even in the most general statement; but the crimes of repre- 
 sentative men, men at the centres of power, do entail a vast 
 amount of grief on humanity. Think of the suffering that 
 came to America from the early importation of slaves ! Think 
 of the suffering that cursed Europe from the tyranny of kings 
 and popes ! Think of the sufferings of workingmen and sew- 
 ing women from the inordinate greed of men already rich ! 
 Think of the horrors of a war that is produced by a few great 
 politicians ! 
 
 Whatever else they failed of having, these Bible-writers had 
 the eternal secret of life and providence — the conviction that 
 God created the world and humanity for the sake of righteous- 
 ness — that evil must always and everywhere work destruction 
 
158 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 and misery — that virtue has the pledge of the Infinite himself 
 for its rewards. That is the faith which made the Bible, and 
 that is the faith which has produced all the virtues of human 
 history. A book through which that faith breathes and pulses 
 cannot lose its sacred hold on the hearts of men, however 
 theories change. Follow the Bible right, through and you will 
 find that evil is always punished and virtue always rewarded, 
 (always excepting the books of Esther and Ecclesiastes.) Abra- 
 ham is faithful, and the desire of his heart is rewarded by 
 the miraculous birth of a son. Jacob lies to his father, and 
 then he suffers the deceptions of Laban. He becomes true, 
 and God abundantly blesses him. Joseph's virtue is lifted on 
 high and becomes the saving power of his people. After all 
 the great deeds of Moses and all his Divine rewards, he is not 
 suffered to enter the promised land because he once proved 
 faithless to Jehovah. Sampson lost his power by dallying with 
 vice. David's cruelty was brought home to him in the death 
 of Absalom, and his meanest act ended in his bitterest grief. 
 Solomon, blessed above all men for his love of wisdom and his 
 obedient spirit, lost the glory of his kingdom through unright- 
 eousness. Read the stories as they are, from the author's 
 standpoint ; you may not agree always with his ideas of what 
 goodness is or what punishment is, but you will find that he 
 always rewards goodness and punishes crime. In that noble 
 sense the Bible is " a book of moral winnowedness." 
 
 In the firm belief of the historians and the prophets, every 
 king failed who was bad, and every good king succeeded. When 
 the nation was righteous God gave it prosperity, but its un- 
 righteousness was visited by calamity. In the conviction of 
 those writers morality was the centre and soul of everything. 
 God looked only at the heart. All the blessings of heaven 
 were pledged to the virtuous. They believed that all the ele- 
 ments of nature were so directly and miraculously controlled as 
 to reward and punish men. Rich harvests, plentiful vines, 
 timely rains and fair winds were given to the good. Blight, 
 mildew, disease, frost, drought and flood were visited upon the 
 bad. 
 
 That childlike faith, so full of danger to all faith, was a sweet 
 and happy comfort to them. It was such a simple and heart- 
 
INCIDENTAL RESULTS. 189 
 
 felt dependence on the good God who loved nothing else as He 
 loved goodness in His children ! Of course the material aspects 
 of that simple faith must be given up. They could not help 
 seeing that some bad men were fortunate, that some good men 
 were great sufferers, that some wicked nations were strong, 
 that their own faithfulness did not prevent their own national 
 weakness and obscurity. 
 
 They changed their theories of suffering and reward, but 
 they did not give up the principle. They began to say that God 
 made good people suffer that He might make them still better, 
 might purify them and make them perfect through sufferings. 
 That was one of the grandest things ever said of Jesus — that 
 *.' He was made perfect through suffering." The apostle prays 
 that he may have the fellowship of Christ's suffering that he 
 may also be glorified with him. 
 
 After the Babylonian captivity, the rewards of righteousness 
 are no longer considered outward and material but inward and 
 spiritual. God will make the faithful Jews the religious teach- 
 ers of the world ; by their griefs they shall touch and purify 
 the hearts of all nations ; their tears and sorrows shall wash 
 away, as in a flood of love, the sins of the whole world ; they 
 shall become " beautified within ;" heathen peoples will flock to 
 Jerusalem and worship the true God, drawn thither by the 
 sanctities of Jewish life and conduct ; brotherhood and kind- 
 ness will destroy cruelty as the sun drives away the night ; by 
 the power of brotherhood, war shall cease ; the lion and the 
 tiger shall become gentle and a little child shall lead them — 
 that is the noblest expression of moral Utopia ever uttered — 
 innocence shall conquer power — love shall quench barbarism. 
 To be good, to do good, to make the whole world happy, even 
 in its sufferings, by purifying the souls of men — that was the 
 new dream of the reward of righteousness which filled their 
 minds after the captivity. 
 
 The theory had changed, but the Bible principle remained 
 the same. Morality was everything. God's providence was all 
 for the virtuous. In that great sense the Bible is one book. 
 The same grand faith in the good outcome of morals, the same 
 conviction of the misery to follow wrong-doing, runs all through 
 it, is the basis and the inspiration and the crowning glory of it. 
 
160 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 When we come into the New Testament the scene changes 
 again-r-changes from earth to heaven. The punishments and 
 the rewards are new, are celestial, are to come beyond death ; 
 but the spirit of the Bible remains the same. Heaven is for the 
 good. Hell is for the bad. The pure in heart shall see God. 
 Those who visit the sick and feed the hungry and clothe the 
 naked and soothe the prisoner and comfort the fatherless, shall 
 be received at God's right hand. The good, who come up from 
 all nations of the earth, shall be given a happy welcome. The 
 children of the kingdom, if they be not righteous, shall be 
 rejected. Whosoever gives a cup of cold water or shows him- 
 self a brother to the "least," will be accepted of Him. The 
 Publican who repents, the Samaritan who is kind, the Roman 
 whose heart is right, the Syrian who loves virtue, the reformed 
 outcast, the heart-stricken thief, are the chief examples of New 
 Testament salvation. God's blessing rushes out to meet the 
 returning prodigal. A pure purpose opens the fountains of 
 Divine reward. The constant refrain of the Gospel, like the 
 melody of " Home, Sweet Home " running through a sym- 
 phony, is : " Be merciful, be unselfish, be kind, be pure, and 
 great is your reward in heaven." The liar and the tyrant and 
 the hypocrite and the selfish and the hard-hearted shall be 
 cast into outer darkness. Another new theory of rewards and 
 punishments we have in the Gospel, but it is the same Old- 
 Testament faith that the destiny of man is fixed by his moral 
 quality. 
 
 The Old Testament laid stress on actions, assuming that if 
 conduct is right the heart is right. The New Testament puts 
 emphasis on motives, assuming that if the heart be pure the 
 conduct will be pure. Jesus had no invention of government 
 or church to filter the waters of conduct ; he would purify the 
 fountain of sentiments. It was his direct belief that " a good 
 tree cannot bear evil fruit." He carried this principle of inward 
 purity to the pitch of absolute idealism. " Be ye perfect even 
 as your Father in heaven is perfect." If men complain that 
 such idealism is impractical, Jesus would answer them as John 
 Ruskin answered the English architects when he demanded 
 certain changes in the interest of their art, and they cried out 
 " Impossible ! " " Oh," said he, " it is not the impossibility 
 
INCIDENTAL RESULTS. 161 
 
 of it that I am talking about but the indispensability of it." 
 Jesus never considered "practical" questions. To His divine 
 enthusiasm the ideal was indispensable. Moral perfection was 
 God's eternal purpose. It was for that the earth and humanity- 
 were created. It was for that the life of this world and the 
 world to come were granted. That was the task to which the 
 Eternal Father set himself. That was the meaning and pur- 
 pose of providence. That is God's reason for everything He 
 does, God's reason for everything that man suffers, the goal 
 toward which all creation moves, the consummation of the 
 events of time — moral perfection. 
 
 That, as I am able to read it, is the very soul of Bible teach- 
 ing. That is what makes the Bible the religious classic of all 
 ages. That demand for perfectness places the teaching of 
 Scripture at the summit of life. We may fall below it, far be- 
 low it in our schemes for the " practical," and we may rise 
 again in our enthusiasm toward it; but human thought and 
 feeling can never rise above it. 
 
 This moral teaching of Christ, which was a natural devel- 
 opment along the same line of the moral teaching in Genesis, 
 must stand while the world stands as the final and complete 
 word of life. 
 
 Everything in religion draws life from that doctrine of moral 
 perfectness. It determines our thought of humanity — what an 
 exalted nature man must have, what divine abilities, when such 
 demand can be made of him ! It determines our thought of 
 God — how glorious, how patient, how full of love must be his 
 nature, to set this ideal as the end of his work ! It determines 
 our thought of the future — what an infinite meaning there is 
 in the life beyond death, if that life also is for the sake of 
 completing God's purpose ! How far we are below perfection 
 in this world ! What ignorance and sin are yet in the souls of 
 men when they die ! What a grand thought, that rewards and 
 punishments, teaching and experience, are to be continued 
 until the Gospel demand is fulfilled ! What an overwhelming 
 idea, that God's word, " Be ye perfect," shall be held aloft as 
 the command of eternity until it is obeyed and every soul shall 
 come into the spirit of it ! 
 
 That is my conception of the Bible. Its mistakes are mis- 
 21 
 
162 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 takes of theory, as when the prophets taught that morality 
 would avert earthquakes and mildew ; but the central principle 
 of it, ceaselessly insisted on from Genesis to Gospel, amid all 
 changes of theory, is this highest truth that ever entered the 
 mind of man — this truth, that the purpose of creation was 
 righteousness ; that the life of man, and the fashioning of the 
 whole material universe,' and God's action from eternity to 
 eternity ; that everything on earth and in the heavens, material 
 and spiritual, past and present and future, was and is and shall 
 be for the sake of morals. A book with that sublime convic- 
 tion at the heart of it, had it a thousand mistakes of scientific 
 theory and historic event and theological speculation, must yet 
 be the book of books. 
 
 Revelation. 
 
 "I think Thy thoughts after Thee." Such is the reve- 
 lation of God's wisdom to man. Divine intelligence is 
 revealed to human intelligence, manifests itself in human 
 intelligence. The facts and forces and laws and purposes 
 of the universe are recognized by the man of scientific 
 genius. These things are never told ; men discover, through 
 their own study and development and culture, the plans of God 
 in matter and life. How the Almighty conceived and realized 
 a solar system, how He arranged for and brought to pass the 
 kingdoms of vegetable and animal and human existence, by 
 what devices He calculated and has compelled the growth of 
 civilization — the revelation of it all comes to man's intelligence. 
 Intelligence can only be revealed to intelligence. The revela- 
 tion grows and brightens in the exact ratio of human ability 
 and the exercise of thought. 
 
 It must be precisely so concerning the moral nature, the 
 feelings and purposes, of God. Divine emotion is revealed to 
 human emotion, manifests itself in human emotion. The 
 justice and pity and love of God are recognized by the man of 
 moral genius. These things are never told ; men discover, 
 through their own moral developments and culture, the plans 
 of God in humanity and for eternity. What is the ethical 
 meaning of our existence ; how we can fulfill our destiny and 
 
INCIDENTAL RESULTS. 163 
 
 his purpose ; what is right and brotherly; what salvation is and 
 is to be ; the entire plan of a soul, with its possible excellencies — 
 the revelation of it all comes to man's moral nature, as that 
 nature is developed and refined. Morality can only be revealed 
 to morality. Righteousness and love can only be revealed to 
 righteousness and love. The moral sense of man is a mirror, 
 more or less perfect, in which the Divine nature and purposes 
 are reflected. Man's moral sense, like his knowledge, is a 
 growing thing. As we find it recorded in the Bible and in 
 all other literature, in the laws and customs and manners of 
 human society, the moral sense is always enlarging and refining. 
 It is crude and feeble in all primitive races. In the early stages 
 of its evolution it can reflect but a poor and distorted concep- 
 tion of the Deity, as a half-polished and badly-soiled plate of 
 metal can only reflect a dim and blurred outline of your own 
 face. With every new development of the moral sense, it 
 reflects the Divine character in clearer outlines and broader 
 proportions. In an age when the moral sense is so feebly 
 cultured that men see nothing wrong in slavery and polygamy 
 and capital punishment for heresy, the popular conception of 
 God will be very untrue, or but partially or inadequately true — 
 like a child's notions of astronomy. Only the moral sense that 
 has grown to something like perfection can truly represent God, 
 as only the widest and most exact knowledge of the scientist 
 can reveal the infinite facts of astronomy. 
 
 It is impossible for men to think of God's morality except in 
 the terms of their own moral experience. Men will never think 
 of God as kind to his enemies (if it were possible for him to 
 have any) until they have learned how to treat their enemies 
 kindly. It will never occur to men that God's love is universal 
 until they have developed at least the desire to put all vengeance 
 out of their own hearts. The average moral sense of any age 
 will determine the popular estimate of God. People never 
 think of God as being any better than their own secret pur- 
 poses. It is impossible that they should. An artist will see a 
 thousand beauties in a landscape or a sunset to which the 
 plodding farmer is blind. It requires an artistic soul to appre- 
 ciate the Divine art. It requires a pure soul to appreciate the 
 Divine purity. " Spiritual things are spiritually discerned." 
 
104 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 When you find such a morality as Jesus lived and taught, you 
 may trust the conception of Deity which it reflects upon the 
 world. The man who can put the golden rule into his daily 
 feeling and conduct is able to comprehend somewhat worthily 
 the eternal goodness. Whether that man lives in the first 
 century or the nineteenth, in Christendom or heathendom, he 
 is capable of teaching great truth about God's feelings and 
 providence. His own character is a mirror that reflects with 
 wonderful accuracy the character of his Maker. He is the only 
 man whose word is to be relied on as anything like a complete 
 or final revelation. 
 
 This is the great principle of interpretation laid down by 
 higher criticism. We must read every book and sentence of 
 the Bible in the light of the age which produced it. If we find 
 that God is represented unworthily, that words and actions are 
 attributed to him which we now see would be wrong, we must 
 simply remember that the moral standards of the nineteenth 
 centur}' are higher than the moral standards of the ancient 
 world. Many things that were once considered as virtues we 
 have come to look upon as vices or failings. Every age 
 attributes its highest sense of virtue to God. 
 
 Such feelings as jealousy, egotism, vanity, self-love, which 
 we condemn as unworthy of a noble character, were not 
 anciently condemned. They were admired and delighted in as 
 the proper feelings of the great. Selfishness and the spirit of 
 tyranny belonged to a king, as his crown and sceptre. With- 
 out them, with kindliness and modesty, a king of the olden 
 time would have been despised as a weakling. The vanities, 
 egotisms, mutual hatreds and deceitful schemings of the Greek 
 gods were quite in keeping with what the Greeks admired in 
 great men. It did not occur to John Calvin that he was dis- 
 honoring God when he laid it down as the first principle of 
 theology that God does everything for his own glory — thinks 
 of nothing from eternity to eternity but his own glory. Calvin 
 does not mean it as a dishonor when he tells us that God will 
 eternally damn the great majority of his own children, just 
 because it will show forth the glorious majesty of his power. 
 Calvin's moral sense belonged to the dark ages. That was the 
 sort of thing he admired in great men. That was the sort of 
 
INCIDENTAL RESULTS. 165 
 
 thing he admired in himself when he plotted the death of his 
 friend Servetus. 
 
 The gods of all ancient nations, Hebrew included, have been 
 represented as demanding worship. First and foremost in all 
 the old religions is the god's demand that people shall fall 
 abjectly before him, and humble themselves in the dust, and 
 adore his power and beg his mercy. In every old religion the 
 gods are represented as demanding the best and choicest of 
 everything for themselves — the first fruits of the flock and the 
 herd and the field and the vineyard — not because the gods had 
 any use for these things — not that they needed anything to eat 
 or drink — but that man should be constantly humiliated before 
 them. To our moral sense there could be nothing more 
 repulsive than such a demand, but it was not repulsive to the 
 ancients — it was delightful to them. That wanton and haughty 
 display of power was what they admired in their kings and 
 princes. They thought the gods were actuated by the same 
 personal ambitions and passions for glory which rankled in the 
 breasts of great men. The entire system of sacrifices, the 
 foundation of all ancient religions, is thus an expression of 
 man's belief in the self-love of the gods. They must be 
 coaxed and begged and richly rewarded before they would 
 grant the slightest favor. That was kingly. A king's favor 
 is a precious thing. It is not to be granted lightly. You 
 shall be made to feel how great is the condescension when he 
 stoops to bless a worm of the dust like you. That was the 
 ancient idea of greatness in men or gods. It is a supreme 
 relief when we can read these things in the Bible and under- 
 stand that we are simply reading the history of man's prim- 
 itive moral sense. Higher criticism has conferred no greater 
 boon than to relieve our worship of these crudities. When 
 the moral sense of the Hebrews became more highly and 
 finely developed, these crudities were put away. The prophets 
 tell us that God is weary of sacrifices, and that He demands 
 truth and righteousness. Jesus declares that God is not like a 
 jealous king, but like a good father who knows what we need 
 before we ask him, and who accepts our kindness to the poor 
 and the afflicted as love offered to himself. Indeed, if all of 
 Jesus' teaching about God could be put into one word, that 
 
166 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 word would be self-forgetfulness. This idea alone makes wor- 
 ship possible to a free intellect and a refined moral sense. A 
 man of freedom and refinement cannot worship by command, 
 any more than he can love on the threat of instant death. 
 Love and worship will not be compelled, cannot be given to 
 those who require them as their right. Worship will be full 
 and free and beautiful, when we feel that God is infinite benev- 
 olence, making no demand for himself ; just as love is unbound- 
 ed to one who gives himself in kindly service and asks nothing 
 in return. 
 
 We have a proverb — a questionable proverb now — which says 
 " The end justifies the means." To the ancient Hebrews it was 
 not questionable — the end both justified and glorified the 
 means. They held that it was not only excusable, it was right 
 and a solemn duty to do wrong that good might come of it. 
 They did not excuse Abraham's falsehood to Abimelech about 
 Sarah ; they did not excuse Moses' falsehood to Pharaoh about 
 going into the wilderness to sacrifice ; they did not excuse 
 Jehu's treachery with the heathen priests ; they did not excuse 
 Jael's assassination of a sleeping soldier or Esther's harlotry and 
 bloodthirstiness in her dealing with Xerxes— instead of excus- 
 ing these deceptions and massacres as we would, if we could, 
 on the ground of military necessity, they gloried in them as 
 matters of principle, and taught their children that God was 
 well pleased with such principles of conduct, just as we teach 
 our children the opposite. They were not satisfied with com- 
 plimenting their heroes for such conduct ; the Old Testament 
 refers the inspiration of such conduct to their god. In the name 
 of all that is honest and honorable under the heavens, why 
 should we believe such Bible teaching when we know it is 
 wrong ! 
 
 It is well to clarify our moral sense on this question of right 
 and wrong. Wrong is not made right even by a military 
 necessity. When evil becomes necessary, as it sometimes does, 
 let us be perfectly candid about it ; let us call it what it is, a 
 necessary evil ; let us not call it right. Let us make that 
 distinction clear and get all of the old traditional fog out of our 
 moral sense. It is sometimes an evil necessity to kill men. It 
 is never right. You who were soldiers did not kill men as a 
 
INCIDENTAL RESULTS. 167 
 
 matter of principle. It was an evil necessity. When the 
 thought of the world becomes perfectly clear on that point, 
 morality will take a sudden and long stride forward. Religion 
 will take a still longer stride forward. Men never attribute a 
 military necessity to God. They attribute to God only what 
 they recognize as a principle of morality. Not any necessary 
 evil, but the eternal right, belongs to the Divine character. 
 The Hebrews attributed all sorts of wickedness to God, because 
 they did not understand the difference between a necessary evil 
 and the eternal right. 
 
 The Hebrews did not individualize crime as we do. They 
 held an entire tribe or nation guilty for any offense that might 
 be committed within its borders. Our American Indians had 
 the same dullness of moral sense. If a white man of any 
 village wronged an Indian, every man and woman and child of 
 that village was held responsible. Shakespeare's Romeo and 
 Juliet pictures the same moral stupidity of the feudal ages. 
 Every Montague held every Capulet responsible for the offense 
 committed by any Capulet. Hebrews had no conception of a 
 war between armies, as we now have. With them it was a war 
 between tribes or nations ; and the war was not ended until the 
 tribe or the nation was exterminated. They had no more 
 compunctions about killing women and children whom they 
 had taken captive than modern Christians have about killing 
 men in the heat of battle. Any modern government would 
 censure a general for turning ten thousand prisoners loose to 
 go back into the enemy's ranks the next day. Any govern- 
 ment would censure a general for drawing off his army from a 
 half-won field because he dreaded to kill more men. That is 
 exactly the way the Hebrews felt when David neglected to 
 massacre the women and children he had captured in battle. 
 He should go on and complete the conquest — annihilate the 
 accursed tribe. Women would till the ground while men 
 fought. Boys would soon grow into soldiers. We make a 
 moral distinction between warfare and massacre. Hebrews 
 did not. Indians do not. Catholics did not, when they sang 
 Te Deum over bt. Bartholomew. Just as the Christians of 
 this age link the name of God with their national wars, 
 and sing praises when they read that ten thousand of the 
 
168 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 enemy have been slaughtered, the Hebrews linked the name 
 of God with any foulest massacre, and felt that they were 
 honoring him when they made him the author of it. Because 
 Hebrews were angry with David for not murdering the women 
 and children, the Bible teaches that God was angry with him on 
 the same ground. If we are not quite so barbarous as they were, 
 let us give the character of God the benefit of our moral 
 progress. 
 
 Man's moral sense is his only revelation of God's character, 
 and when that moral sense is dull the revelation will be distor- 
 ted. It is a great relief to understand the case, to know where 
 all our thoughts about the character of God come from — to 
 know that there will be a perfect revelation when, and only 
 when, the world shall grow into perfect morality. There is 
 no other kind of revelation except this, which arises in the 
 mind and the moral sense of man. The only authority in 
 religious matters that any Bible-writer has, that any man can 
 have, is the authority of knowledge and reason and of moral 
 intuition and culture. God never speaks ; man grows into a 
 larger and truer apprehension of him. All the immoralities of 
 Hebrew thought and conviction are ascribed to their god. 
 Later on, when some of these immoralities are recognized as 
 such, we find them ascribed to their devil. With all their 
 weaknesses, we must recognize that the Hebrews, when com- 
 pared with other races, were a people of exalted moral sense. 
 Above all others, they had a progressive moral sense. The 
 pre-eminence of the Bible is its faithful record of this growing 
 moral sense of the Hebrews— a moral sense which grew and 
 refined until it put forth the Sermon on The Mount. 
 
 Inspiration. 
 
 We say that the beauties of nature inspire an artist, a poet, a 
 lover. Ocean and mountains inspire even a plodding soul. 
 The stars and the intricate facts of the microscope inspire the 
 astronomer and the naturalist. The history of human struggles 
 for liberty and the rights of man inspire us all with patriotism. 
 Heroic devotion and self-denial inspire us to courage and 
 unselfishness. What is it to be inspired of God ? Exactly 
 
INCIDENTAL RESULTS. 169 
 
 these, and like things. God is in all and through all. Nature's 
 beauty is his ; nature's grandeur is his ; man's goodness 
 is his; the mother's love is his. His life is in all; by his 
 life all is sustained. The soul lives by ceaseless contact with 
 him. By whatsoever in nature or humanity we are lifted to 
 higher life, it is the Divine quickening. The farmer digs a 
 well and strikes a vein of living water ; it is surmised that 
 there are electric currents in the upper air by which we could 
 communicate with other continents without the bungling de- 
 vice of an Atlantic cable ; the earth itself is so magnetized by 
 the universal presence of some inexplicable force that the 
 compass-needle is always drawn to the north: the Spirit is 
 not less wonderful. Our spirits, in the deep and high and 
 inmost regions, come into life-touch with the Eternal. Inspi- 
 ration tells nothing; it exalts and illumines, comforts and 
 strengthens. The desire to learn, the love of purity, the mood 
 of prayer, put us into vital communion with the infinite, imma- 
 nent Holiness and Peace. 
 
 Providence, 
 
 like inspiration, is God's immanent life and activity. A tree 
 grows because God's life is in it. A planet develops from chaos 
 because the Divine life is in it. There is human progress 
 because God's laws and forces compel a ceaseless evolution of 
 intelligence and virtue. The exhaustless earth is providence. 
 Human needs and aspirations are providence. Circumstances 
 are providence. When we get over the weakness of miracles, 
 everything is providence. 
 
 The Issue. 
 
 Higher Criticism makes the fair and square issue with 
 traditionalism. That issue cannot be stated too clearly. 
 Evangelical theologians claim that the Bible is revelation. 
 Higher criticism claims that man's moral sense is revelation. 
 Now, of course, if the Bible and man's moral sense were in 
 perfect agreement the theologians and the critics would have 
 no practical differences. I say "practical differences," but I 
 22 
 
170 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 say even that with much caution. If ever}'- command and 
 teaching of the Bible were in perfect accord with the ideal 
 morality of the golden rule, there would still be a vast philo- 
 sophical difference between the theologians and the critics — a 
 difference which might become practical. That primary dif- 
 ference between the two sets of thinkers concerns the simple 
 question of cause and effect. Was the Bible the cause and 
 man's moral sense the effect, or was man's moral sense the 
 cause and the Bible an effect ? Did the Bible produce He- 
 brew religion, or did Hebrew religion produce the Bible? That 
 would still be a very important question, even if the Bible and 
 ideal morality were in perfect agreement. Of course it be- 
 comes the vital question when there is developed the slightest 
 difference between the Bible and moral sense. 
 
 Higher Criticism teaches that the Bible is an effect; that it 
 was produced by Hebrew religion ; that it was written by men, 
 just as all other books have been ; that it is composed of the 
 thoughts and feelings of the men who wrote it. 
 " Out from the heart of nature rolled 
 The burdens of the Bible old ; 
 The litanies of nations came, 
 Like the volcano's tongue of flame, 
 Up from the burning core below, — 
 The canticles of love and woe." 
 
 Whatever there is in the Bible came out of the burning ex- 
 perience, the surging thoughts and emotions of the Hebrew 
 people. In whatever they were right it is right. 
 
 Theologians claim that the Bible had some miraculous 
 origin outside of and distinct from the experience of the He- 
 brew people ; that its authors are not to be credited with its 
 idealisms nor held responsible for its immoral teachings. They 
 tell us that when the Bible and reason disagree, reason shall 
 surrender; when the Bible and the facts of science are not in 
 accord, the facts of science must be counted out ; when the Bible 
 and the noblest emotions of the human heart come into con- 
 flict, the heart must be discredited. Higher Criticism teaches 
 exactly the opposite. It declares that when the Bible and rea- 
 son, the Bible and science, the Bible and the cultured feelings 
 of the heart, are at variance, reason and science and heart 
 shall stand. When the Bible says there were one hundred 
 
INCIDENTAL RESULTS. Ill 
 
 and forty-four thousand sheep and oxen slain as sacrifices, 
 inside of eight days, at the dedication of Solomon's temple, 
 reason denies it. When the Bible tells us that the shadow of 
 the sun went backward on the dial, science denies it. When 
 the Bible teaches that a Sabbath-breaker or a witch or a 
 disobedient son shall be killed, our moral sense denies the teach- 
 ing. When the Bible says that sick people will be cured by 
 the prayers of the elders and by anointing them with oil — at 
 any rate we would not trust the prescription for small-pox and 
 cholera. When the Bible says that " believers " can handle 
 scorpions and drink poison with impunity — well, there are cer- 
 tainly no "believers " left. When the Bible says: "He that 
 believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth 
 not shall be damned " — there were Darwin and Emerson and 
 Lincoln and Lowell and Whittier, unbelievers and unbaptized, 
 and we should enjoy beholding, as a mere natural curiosity, 
 the preacher who would dare to face an intelligent audience 
 and declare that these men are now in Hell. 
 
 Let the statement be made just as plain as English words can 
 make it. Higher Criticism does not test science and reason and 
 moral feeling by the Bible ; it puts the Bible to the constant test 
 of science and reason and moral feeling. Whatever these con- 
 demn it sets aside as untrue. Whatever these confirm it accepts 
 as divine. The truth which the Bible contains is infallible and 
 inerrant — not because it is in the Bible, but because it is truth. 
 The same truth is just as infallible and inerrant in the Koran 
 or the Vedas or the Books of The Dead or Shakespeare or 
 Browning or Walt Whitman. 
 
 " Truth is divine, wherever found, 
 On Christian or on heathen ground." 
 The Bible is diviner than other books, in just so far as it has 
 more truth than other books — divine in no other sense. 
 
 The only way to determine what is true in moral teaching is 
 the test of experience. The golden rule is glorified, not be- 
 cause Jesus uttered it, but because it proves itself divine in 
 every day experience. Jesus himself is not set on high because 
 of any miraculous or superhuman quality, but because his 
 moral and intellectual merits demand the world's reverential 
 affection. Higher criticism agrees most heartily with conserv- 
 
172 RESULTS? OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 ative Presbyterianism that the great teachings of Jesus, as set 
 forth in the Sermon on the Mount, are infallible and inerrant- 
 Higher criticism bows at the altar with evangelicalism before 
 the authority of every established principle of life, and it re- 
 gards every moral and spiritual truth as having within it the 
 sacredness of God's life and loving presence. 
 
 The Tyranny of Texts. 
 
 Concerning all those parts of the Bible which can be demon- 
 strated as true and good, there is no disagreement. All of that 
 is God's word. There is so much in the Bible which human 
 experience has demonstrated to be true and good that no man 
 need to fear this ancient treasury of religious life and moral 
 purpose will ever be neglected. The Bible lives because it is 
 worthy to live. It is the world's devout classic. That is the 
 only reason why any book or painting or musical composition 
 or form of architecture ever comes to be known as a classic. It 
 has so much truth or beauty that the world will never be able 
 to get along without it. 
 
 Urging all of that as heartily as ever the orthodox churches 
 urged it, the critics understand that there are errors, mistakes, 
 wrong teaching, contradictions, in the Bible, and those things 
 the critics will not accept as God's word. You recall the use 
 that Matthew Arnold, in " Literature and Dogma," has made 
 of the German word, aberglaube, " extra belief." Allow me to 
 say that the com77ion belief of theologians and critics alike is 
 belief in those moral principles which human experience has 
 demonstrated. All together accept these as divine. Aberglaube 
 will represent the " extra belief " of theologians in the divine- 
 ness of the errors and mistakes of the Bible. Belief in the 
 infallibility of Bible truth is the world's moral salvation. There 
 is no other kind of salvation. Belief in the infallibility of 
 aberglaube has filled these eighteen centuries of Christian 
 history with hatred and persecution and war. Aberglaube has 
 been the supreme enemy of knowledge and political liberty. 
 Infallibility for those things which do not accord with reason 
 and moral sense — that has been the tyranny of the ages. It 
 
INCIDENTALr-BESULTS. 178 
 
 was that which destroyed the magnificent literatures and the 
 classic arts of Greece and Rome. You remember the saying 
 attributed to Omer when one of his generals captured Alexan- 
 dria, and asked what should be done with the great library. 
 "Burn it," replied Omer; "for if the books accord with the 
 Koran they are unnecessary ; and if they are contrary to the 
 Koran they are pernicious." Everybody knows that the first 
 part of the reply was hypocritical. Men do not destroy the 
 treasures of literature because they accord with what is 
 believed. All such treasures are the more ardently treasured. 
 Omer had a deep suspicion, or a clear conviction, that the 
 Alexandrian library would not accord with the aberglaube of 
 the Koran. Mohammedans had learned from Christians how 
 to fortify their Scriptural mistakes with the doctrine of infalli- 
 bility. The Christian church was thoroughly convinced that 
 science would not agree with the Biblical aberglaube, and that 
 is why Galileo and Bruno were persecuted ; that is why Coper- 
 nicus delayed the publication of his treatise on astronomy more 
 than thirty years — he wanted to live ; that is why Darwin and 
 Huxley and Spencer have been so bitterly assailed. The 
 church is perfectly aware that higher criticism is not in har- 
 mony with aberglaube, and that is why the church denounces 
 the great modern scholars. The reason why criticism is always 
 replied to with personal abuse is perfectly plain — there is no 
 other way of replying to it. 
 
 The Ground of Hatred and Persecution. 
 
 Aberglaube means not only the doctrine of infallibility for 
 Biblical mistakes, but the doctrine of infallibility for all those 
 conflicting and extraordinary texts of the Bible which lie 
 outside the regions of demonstration. It is this particular 
 aberglaube which has created the ceaseless commotions inside 
 of Christendom itself. The churches all together hate critics 
 from the standpoint of infallibility for immoral and unscientific 
 and unreasonable texts. The churches hate each other from 
 the standpoint of infallibility for those doctrinal texts which 
 contradict each other, and whose truth or falsity on either side 
 can never be demonstrated. 
 
174 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 Just think of the hatreds between the Protestant churches 
 and the Catholic church ; the full hundred years of battle and 
 the shedding of millions of human lives. One of the theolog- 
 ical reasons for that conflict — and all the other theological 
 reasons were like it — was a dispute as to whether the flesh and 
 blood of Christ were present in the communion wafer. Was 
 there a constant miracle by which the unseen and intangible 
 essence of the Master's body always graced the sacred elements ? 
 By the confession of both parties it was forever impossible to 
 decide whether or not that secret miracle had been wrought. 
 Here was a text that seemed to favor it ; there was a text that 
 seemed to deny it ; and such was their belief in the infallibility 
 of texts that countless millions of men were ready to die for 
 their side of a problem which they all knew could never be 
 solved. 
 
 Look at the conflicts of the Calvinistic and Arminian 
 churches, which kept the social life of Germany and England 
 and America in a very bedlam of quarreling and vengeance for 
 two more centuries. Higher criticism is not hated by anybody 
 to-day as bitterly as Methodists and Presbyterians hated each 
 other two or three generations ago. Their quarrel became a 
 sort of hereditary feud in every village and neighborhood, and 
 the very children were taught to despise each other. What 
 was it all about ? Here are some Bible texts that teach man's 
 free agency. There are other texts that teach foreordination. 
 Arminians hated as if they were doomed to it, and Calvinists 
 hated with what looked like the freest and most deliberate 
 purpose of their own. Of course, nobody could tell, or ever 
 can tell, whether the laws of life are such that every human 
 action is the scientific effect of a series of causes which run 
 backward to infinity. Bible writers differed on that subject, 
 just as writers do to-day; but our fathers believed the infalli- 
 bility of texts, and each party planted itself on those texts that 
 favored its side of the problem, and closed eyes to all texts on 
 the other side, and they hurled the Bible at each other and 
 kept on hating. 
 
 The Baptist churches waged a long and bitter fight with the 
 other evangelical churches for the same kind of a reason. Here 
 were texts that favored immersion. There were texts that 
 
INCIDENTAL RESULTS. 178 
 
 favored sprinkling. There was no possible means of deciding 
 whether one form of baptism was more pleasing to God than 
 the other. Both parties believed in the infallibility of the 
 texts which favored their belief, and they kept on fighting until 
 the common sense of the world was disgusted and they were 
 shamed into silence. 
 
 The Christian world and the Mohammedan world have been 
 at war a great portion of the time for twelve centuries. The 
 foundation of that war was the doctrine of the Trinity. Of 
 course it is impossible for human beings ever to know whether 
 God exists as Trinity or Unity. The earlier parts of the Old 
 Testament teach polytheism. The later parts teach that there 
 is one God. The New Testament almost constantly teaches 
 the one divine person. There are a few texts which may be 
 made to mean Trinity. Every scholar knows that the Christian 
 church received its doctrine of Trinity from the Greeks. On 
 the infallibility of those few texts which may be twisted into 
 Trinitarianism and which contradict hundreds of other texts, 
 the Christian world has waged twelve centuries of war, destroyed 
 billions of human lives, wrecked the property of nation after 
 nation, kept humanity for a full thousand years in a state of 
 barbarism. 
 
 For sixteen centuries or more the Jews were hated and per- 
 secuted with a spirit of vengeance never exceeded by savage 
 tribes. Why ? Because they, like the Mohammedans, would 
 not give up their grand old belief in the unity of God, as the 
 Christian did, and accept the Greek speculation of Trinity. 
 
 For seventy-five years the Evangelicals and the Universalists 
 of America waged a bitter warfare, in which personal misrep- 
 resentation and slander played a most unseemly part, because 
 there are texts which favor eternal damnation and other texts 
 which favor the final holiness and happiness of all mankind. 
 Each party claimed infallibility for the texts it loved and 
 explained the opposite texts into thin air. 
 
 You know that the moon always presents the same side to 
 us ; we never see the other side, and never shall. A very 
 thoughtful writer tells us that the moon is pear-shaped, and 
 that the power of the earth's gravitation always holds the big 
 end towards us. That reason seems reasonable, but until it 
 
176 RESULTS OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 can be demonstrated let us not quarrel about it. When it is 
 demonstrated of course we shall not quarrel about it. Suppose, 
 however, that there should arise schools of theorists concerning 
 the other side of the moon ; that one school should declare its 
 surface to be a dead level, while another school declared that 
 it had mountains ten miles high. Suppose that the " mountain" 
 school should subdivide into several sects; one believing that 
 those invisible mountains were composed of old red sandstone ; 
 another believing them to be solid masses of blue limestone ; 
 another claiming that they are built of Quincy granite. Sup- 
 pose that all the people of Europe and America should divide 
 on the question and join these various sects. Suppose that 
 great social organizations should be constructed on the founda- 
 tions of this and that belief. Suppose these organizations 
 began to denounce and traduce each other as heretics, infidels, 
 enemies of the true faith. Suppose they came to war on the 
 subject, and should fight about it for the next three or four 
 centuries, until all the civilizations we have built up in these 
 modern times were destroyed, and the people of the twenty- 
 third centry should find themselves again in the barbarism of 
 the fourteenth century. What would the people of the twenty- 
 fifth century — supposing them to have come to their senses — 
 what would they think of such an issue ? About what the men 
 of higher criticism think of the sectarian wars and hatreds of 
 the past and the present. Four hundred years of war about 
 the invisible things on the other side of the moon would have 
 as much reason and as much religion in it as twelve centuries 
 of war on the doctrine of Trinity, or two centuries of hatred on 
 the question of whether man's free will was foreordained, or 
 one century of vengeance on the problem of immersion. 
 
 What Higher Criticism is Good For. 
 
 It is good for the common sense and the peace and the 
 prosperity and the brotherhood of mankind. It will destroy 
 this foolish doctrine of infallibility for two texts which contra- 
 dict each other. It will shame out of existence this supreme 
 folly of going to war, or of hating your neighbor, on the 
 strength of some speculative notion, the truth of which can 
 
INCIDENTAL RESULTS 177 
 
 never be demonstrated. It will relegate to the limbo of eternal 
 scorn the idea, or the fear, that God can be the author of any- 
 teaching which is not morally perfect. It will finally establish 
 the doctrine that man's cultivated moral sense is the true 
 medium of revelation : and that will do away with sectarian 
 hatreds. 
 
 We can hardly imagine the moral progress and the happiness 
 that would come to the world in the next hundred years, if 
 the churches would cease to expend their energies in sectarian 
 quarrels and trials for heresy, and should stand shoulder to 
 shoulder in the work of helping their fellow-men. That con- 
 summation, so devoutly to be wished, can never be brought 
 about while churches cling to the infallibility of Bible texts 
 which contradict each other, or contradict science, or contra- 
 dict reason, or contradict the moral sense. 
 
 Men do not quarrel about things that can be demonstrated. 
 They make the demonstrations and abide by the results and 
 call them divine. Moral principles have been demonstrated. 
 Higher Criticism pleads with the world to accept them as God's 
 principles. 
 
 There would be no quarrel about things that cannot be 
 demonstrated if men understood they were human and fallible 
 speculations. There will always be different beliefs about what 
 is unknowable. As long as men claim to have God's authority 
 and command for their special theories about the unknowable, 
 there will be hatred and persecution. When all such differ- 
 ences are recognized as simple differences of theory, the good 
 time of peace and religious brotherhood will come. 
 
 23 
 
"PHASES OF RELIGIOiV IN AMERICA." 
 
 By W. S. Crowe. 
 
 " A particularly fresh and suggestive treatment of many of 
 our most pressing religious problems. These lectures treat 
 the following subjects : 
 
 I. Puritanism, or the Religion of the Book. 
 II. Methodism, or the Religion of Experience. 
 
 III. Episcopalianism, or the Religion of Symbols. 
 
 IV. Universalism, or the Book against the Book. 
 V. Unitarianism, or Humanity against Tradition. 
 
 VI. Theism, or the Revolt from the Materialistic Revolt. 
 VII. Spiritualism, or the Religion of Demonstration. 
 VITI. Ethical Culture, or the Religion of Agnosticism. 
 IX. Reform within the Churches, or the Religion of Inter- 
 pretation. 
 X. The Concensus of Reason and Emotion, or the Religion 
 
 of Eclecticism. 
 XI. The Problem— Is God Good? 
 XII. The Method,— How God works. 
 XIII. The Hope. 
 
 From the statement of these subjects the general scope of 
 the book will be gathered. But the insight, keenness, and 
 strength with which all the themes are treated, can be under- 
 stood only by reading the book itself. If any one would know 
 what is the trend of the most radical and at the same time the 
 most reverent religious thought of our time, we do not know 
 where he will find out better than from these fascinating lectures 
 of Dr. Crowe." — The Unitarian. 
 
 A busy business man writes : " Few theological books would 
 keep me awake, but Phases of Religion in America robs me of 
 sleep like a first-class novel or play." 
 
" We wish that we could quote more largely from this book. 
 We have marked enough passages to fill a page of the Times; 
 and they all sparkle with gems of thought, and with that pow- 
 erful diction of which Dr. Crowe is a master. 
 
 We are not sure that Dr. Crowe's platform will suit every 
 one, but the new Christianity appeals to the rational interest 
 of mankind and it will work a revolution in the old theology, 
 if not an entire change."— Newark Daily Times. 
 
 " There are many eloquent passages in each lecture. . . . 
 The rhetoric is glittering, but never turgid ; earnest and fascin- 
 ating, yet characterized by tranquil dignity. . . . The book 
 is so temperate and kindly that, though men will differ with 
 the author, they will close it without a feeling of animosity." — 
 Newark Sunday Call. 
 
 " It is a book that will awaken criticism, but that can safely 
 court the criticism. The honesty of its purpose and the ability 
 of its execution will be unquestioned. It will be profitable 
 reading for those who agree and those who differ. Dr. Crowe's 
 style is vigorous and direct ; the book will prove a thought 
 generator. The purpose of this series of lectures is ' to state 
 the main principles of religious thought and feeling in Amer- 
 ica; denominations are introduced only as they are typical, 
 leaving the author free to deal with those phases of the relig- 
 ious problem which are not institutionalized.' In carrying out 
 this purpose Dr. Crowe has given us an outline of denomina- 
 tional positions that for clearness, frankness and fairness will 
 be hard to excel. 
 
 There is no more valuable part of the book than the two 
 chapters on the 'Problem' and the 'Method.' It is doubtful 
 if there ever has been written a better argument against athe- 
 ism." — Philadelphia Corresponde7it of the Christian Leader. 
 
 A ministerial friend writes : " I have gotten a year's preach- 
 ing out of it." 
 
 " Our new world is the Old World, its languages and litera- 
 tures, governments and religions — carried over and repro- 
 duced under new conditions. These were such as to make the 
 time, in one sense, a possibly creative period ; and such it was 
 
and proved to be in modifications and adaptations to changed 
 environments; but still, in the main, old ideas and forms, 
 especially in religion, held their way ; each seed producing 
 after its kind. 
 
 It is in the clear perception and working out of this fact, and 
 the wonderful and even dramatic power of its presentation, 
 that the great value of Dr. Crowe's Phases of Religion in 
 America is seen. It is not alone a history, but at the same 
 time a philosophy of history, and it is only as history is thus 
 read that its real and deeper meanings can be understood, and 
 its educational, its teaching, power be realized. 
 
 Phases of Religion in America is a proper companion to 
 Dr. Herford's Story of Religion in England ; but the latter 
 is not essential to the understanding of the former, for Dr. 
 Crowe deals sufficiently with the sources to make plain their 
 related results. His work is really a contribution to the history 
 and literature of the religious thought and life of our country; 
 not in the sense of new facts, for these are common ; but in 
 their grouping and interpretation, and the wisely placed em- 
 phasis of their essential contents and values. The conception, 
 the style, the movement of the thought, is such that any 
 thoughtful mind, reading the first lecture, will be carried on 
 with increasing interest to the last ; and then wish that there 
 were more." — Review of the book by H. W. Tho7nas, D.D., in 
 To-Day. 
 
 " Though brilliantly written and abounding in rhetorical cli- 
 maxes and antitheses, which are in most hands eminently 
 unfavorable to a candid presentation of facts, there is not a 
 single palpable injustice, a single inflamed or over-wrought 
 statement in the book. The writer's rare powers of humor, of 
 satire, of sarcasm, are held in kindly leash, and thoroughly sub- 
 ordinated to the promptings of a noble heart and the decisions 
 of a crystal mind. One feels, as these glowing pages storm his 
 heart and his intellect, that the author does indeed ' plead that 
 truth of religion which over-arches all sects, and that spiritual 
 experience which underlies them all.' 
 
 The eleventh chapter (' The Problem — Is God Good ? ') is a 
 powerful presentation of a difficult theme, and is itself worth 
 ten times the price of the book. In connection with the twelfth 
 chapter, (' The Method — How God Works ') it is an irrefrag- 
 
able reply to the pessimism of Schopenhauer and the shallow 
 arraignments of Providence in the disjointed and phantasmal 
 philosophy of Ingersoll. 
 
 Phases of Religion in America shows ripeness of scholarship, 
 fulnesss of reading, maturity of judgment, carefulness of prep- 
 aration and complete mastery of the subjects treated. The 
 writer has strong convictions of his own, but they are mellowed 
 by a broad and generous catholicity of temperament and cul- 
 ture, which enables him to take the position of the sect, party 
 or movement he wishes to discuss." — From a review by Jos. H. 
 Foy, LL.D., in Non- Sectarian. 
 
 " We know of no other single book in which the reader will 
 find so much latter-day information concerning Methodism, 
 Episcopalianism, Universalism, Unitarianism, Theism, Spiritu- 
 alism, Ethical Culture, and the general considerations that 
 would gather around such a study." — Unity. 
 
 Phases of Religion in America. 
 
 BY W. S. CROWE, D.D. 
 
 144 pages, Cloth, One Dollar. 
 
 Address Rev. W. S. Crowe, Newark, N.